Podcast Summary: Consider This from NPR

Episode: What the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision Means for Small Businesses

Air Date: February 20, 2026
Host: Scott Detrow
Guests: Nina Totenberg (NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent), Scott Horsley (NPR Chief Economics Correspondent), Robert Leo (Trade Lawyer), Victor Schwartz (Wine Importer)

Overview

This episode breaks down the Supreme Court’s landmark decision declaring a significant portion of former President Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional, analyzing what this means for small businesses, U.S. trade policy, and the broader economy. The discussion covers both legal and economic implications, including how Congress and the presidency share powers over tariffs and what may be next for U.S. businesses and tariff payers.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Tariffs

• Main decision: The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the President cannot unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA); that power resides with Congress.
• Historical context: Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion cited the constitutional allocation of taxing and tariff authority to Congress, referencing the Founders’ desire to avoid taxation without legislative accountability.
  • Quote: “Having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by taxes imposed on them by the King of England… the framers wrote a constitution that gives Congress the taxing power because the members of the legislature would be more accountable to the people.” (Nina Totenberg, 03:44)

2. Economic Impact on Businesses

• Small businesses particularly hit: Many import-dependent businesses, such as Victor Schwartz’s wine business, struggled with sudden and shifting tariffs, disrupted cash flow, and confusion over pricing.
  • Quote: "Finding the money to pay the tariffs, it put a big hole in our cash flow. For us, it's like in the six-figure range. Where's that money gonna come from?" (Victor Schwartz, 01:10)
• Tariff burden: U.S. mid-sized businesses paid three times as much in tariffs as before Trump’s return to office, costing tens of billions annually.

3. The President’s Response and Possible Next Moves

• Trump's reaction: President Trump denounced the ruling, called the court “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats,” and vowed to seek other statutory pathways to impose tariffs.
  • Quote: "Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected." (Donald Trump, 01:39)
• Legal reality: Nina Totenberg explained that while other statutes do allow for some presidential tariff powers, they are much more limited—often requiring Congressional approval after six months and lessening executive flexibility.

4. Broader Economic Effects

• Federal revenue: The government was collecting ~$30 billion/month in tariffs, and the ruling wipes out about half. This will raise the federal deficit but isn't a crippling fiscal blow (tariffs = approx. 5% of revenue).
• Market reaction: Markets responded mutely, perhaps expecting the White House to replace outlawed tariffs with other measures, though with more constraints.
• Economic resilience: Despite tariffs, U.S. GDP grew 2.2% in 2025; imports increased slightly as businesses sought non-targeted foreign suppliers.

5. Refunds and What’s Next for Businesses

• Refund issue: Companies are expected to seek refunds for improperly collected tariffs. The process’ details are yet undecided and will likely be clarified by a lower court.
  • Quote: "It won't be a mess. Customs has all this information electronically, and...our clients...know how much they paid." (Robert Leo, 07:19)
• Advocacy: The National Retail Federation urges a “seam[less] process” for refunds.

6. Court’s Reasoning & Judicial Dynamics

• Deference to congressional authority: Nina Totenberg notes the majority opinion is a “John Roberts special,” respectful of Congress’ constitutional prerogative over raising revenues.
  • Quote: “The decision clearly, clearly tells the president to stay in his constitutional lane.” (Nina Totenberg, 07:50)
• Fractured court: Though the split was 6–3, justices were divided not just along ideological lines but in their reasoning—yielding five separate opinions, described as “everybody had something to say.”
  • Roberts’ opinion joined by Gorsuch, Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson; Kavanaugh dissented.
  • Memorable moment: “Everybody had something to say.” (Nina Totenberg, 09:09)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The tariffs changed so many times...we had to go through and change our entire price book, many hundreds of items four times.”
  — Victor Schwartz (00:47)
• “They're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.”
  — Donald Trump (04:22)
• “Stocks rose, but not very much. It was a pretty muted reaction compared to the big sell off last year...”
  — Scott Horsley (05:48)

Important Timestamps

• 00:47–01:20: Small business challenges with tariff unpredictability (Victor Schwartz)
• 03:44–04:27: Supreme Court’s reasoning and Trump’s reaction (Nina Totenberg, Trump)
• 05:08–05:37: Economic scale and implications of the ruling (Scott Horsley)
• 06:24–06:51: Tariffs’ limited impact on trade and GDP (Scott Horsley)
• 06:55–07:19: Prospects for tariff refunds and logistics (Scott Horsley, Robert Leo)
• 07:50–08:25: What the decision says about the Court’s current philosophy (Nina Totenberg)
• 08:28–09:09: Court dynamics and judicial opinions (Nina Totenberg)

Conclusion

This concise yet far-reaching Supreme Court decision reasserts Congressional authority over tariffs while introducing practical uncertainty for businesses—especially those pursuing refunds. President Trump’s options for future executive-imposed tariffs are sharply constrained, and any further moves will require more Congressional involvement. Despite the political volatility and market disruptions triggered by the tariffs, U.S. economic fundamentals remain strong, and the process for repaying affected importers is technically manageable. As the legal and policy landscape shifts, small businesses are left awaiting the next developments—both in Washington and in the courts.