By John Moist

On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court determined that President Donald Trump could not invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs on imports. But for businesses and consumers looking for an immediate return to the low-tariff global economy, celebrations may be a bit premature.

According to Jason Satchell, teaching assistant professor of finance at the University of Illinois' Gies College of Business, the ruling is more like a speed bump for an administration committed to its current trade strategy.

"My initial reaction was that this is a good decision, but it's not over," said Satchell. "A lot of people are thinking, 'OK, there's no tariffs, great.' But that's not the case. This administration has intent on going down the path of isolationism and tariffs, and I don't see them stopping. I see them finding other avenues."

Those avenues are already traveled. Striking down the Trump administration's utilization of the 1977 IEEPA doesn't strip the executive branch of its other trade tools. Satchell, an expert in finance with a background at one of the country’s largest mutual fund providers, expects policymakers to move quickly to leverage them. Several sections of trade law grant the executive authority to impose tariffs under broad and loosely defined conditions. Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act comes with an expiration date of 150 days. Other provisions, like Section 301, don't expire, though it in particular requires an investigation proving discriminatory trade practices on the part of a foreign country.

"It's vague, and that's where the problem lies," explained Satchell. "[The Trump administration] will try to use those to continue the tariffs." The result is a revolving door of trade policy, not the end of an era.

One unanswered question is what happens to the more than $200 billion already collected from tariffs. Satchell noted that the ruling did not explicitly grant refund payments; the Supreme Court did not order the government to make businesses whole. That leaves open a possible legal avenue for affected importers to pursue restitution, but the path is uncertain. In their dissent, three justices warned of the possibility that “the United States may be required to refund billons of dollars to importers” - a process that Justice Brett Kavanaugh elsewhere commented could be a “mess.” Satchell added that the mess could extend far into future, especially as later tariff possibilities complicate the picture.

“Do they just say, ‘we collected it on this basis, and we still could have collected it regardless - we just would have used a different avenue?’ Satchell asked. “I think we’re going to have to go through another round in the court system to sort that out.”

Markets rose on the news of the ruling, but Satchell was skeptical that the bump would hold once investors fully processed what the decision does and doesn’t do.

“The market doesn’t like risk - it wants a well-known path,” he explained. “This is something markets struggle with, because tariffs can be on and off at any given time. One day it’s 15%, the next day it’s off.” He expects the initial reaction to temper once Wall Street digests that the underlying posture of the administration hasn’t changed.

The picture is starker for small businesses. There’s a sharp contrast between the supply chain and logistical flexibility afforded to large multinational corporations and what’s possible for a neighborhood business with increasingly narrow margins.

“A company like Apple can change their supply chain,” said Satchell. “They can bring over a plane of iPhones on a whim to skirt tariffs. A small business down on Main Street can’t do that.” The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, he commented, estimated in a February 2026 report that nearly 90% of tariff costs fall on US firms and consumers.

The administration has contested those figures, and Satchell himself added that the truth likely falls somewhere in between. But he’s certain that small businesses have felt the pain, and that this ruling does little in the way of relief. For owners that front-loaded inventory or made other tough choices ahead of anticipated tariff changes, the ruling offers no immediate retroactive relief.

“I hope I’m wrong,” he said. “I hope they give up on tariffs and we get back to a more balanced trade deficit. But I don’t think I am wrong. I think what I’ve laid out here is probably the path the administration will take.”

For Satchell, the tariff moment is here to stay.