The US Supreme Court recently ruled 6-3, limiting the executive branch’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs. This decision, while clarifying constitutional powers, reinforces ongoing uncertainty for Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) and procurement leaders.
Persistent Tariff Challenges
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, tariff risks remain. Former President Donald Trump issued a warning on Truth Social, indicating that countries perceived to have exploited the USA will face higher tariffs. This highlights that while one legal pathway for tariffs is now closed, the commercial impacts across cash flow timing, pricing resets, and documentation are only beginning.
Key takeaways
- The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to limit the executive branch's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs.
- The ruling left unresolved what happens to duties already assessed or paid, creating a grey area with no defined administrative process for refunds.
- Recovering those duties would mean unwinding transactions never designed to be reversed — many tariffs have already been passed to customers, renegotiated into supplier contracts or capitalised into inventory.
- PYMNTS Intelligence research found nearly 90% of payment heads at goods companies expected delivery delays, shortages or higher raw material costs, with over half expecting a negative impact overall.
- By summer 2025, 75% of CFOs had raised prices, yet 60% still reported shrinking profit margins.
CFOs are shifting focus from predicting tariff changes to building resilient organizations capable of absorbing policy shifts. The Court’s decision did not clarify the status of duties already assessed or paid, creating a gray area for companies. Potential tariff refunds exist in theory but lack a defined administrative process. Many tariffs imposed over recent years have already been passed to customers, renegotiated into supplier contracts, or capitalized into long term inventory strategies. Recovering these duties would require untangling complex transactions never designed for reversal.
Operational and Financial Impact
Tariffs significantly influence balance sheets, altering when companies pay for goods, how much inventory they carry, and how they finance procurement. Even the possibility of refunds can disrupt these financial rhythms. For lenders, this environment may drive increased demand for revolving credit, supply chain finance, and trade credit insurance as companies hedge against timing mismatches between policy changes and cash realization.
Research by PYMNTS Intelligence indicates that policy volatility, rather than underlying demand alone, has become a dominant variable in business planning. Goods-focused firms, in particular, reported rising concerns about input costs, sourcing stability, and delivery timelines. Over half of payment heads at goods companies believed tariffs would negatively impact their firms, with nearly 90% expecting delivery delays, shortages, or higher raw material costs. By summer 2025, 75% of CFOs had increased prices, yet 60% still reported dwindling profit margins.
Frequently asked questions
Does the ruling end tariff risk?
No. It closes one legal route while leaving others open. Trump signalled on Truth Social that countries seen as having exploited the US would face higher tariffs regardless, so the commercial exposure continues.
Why do tariffs affect the balance sheet rather than just costs?
They change when companies pay for goods, how much inventory they hold and how procurement is financed. Even the prospect of refunds disrupts those rhythms, because the timing of cash no longer matches the timing of policy.
How are CFOs responding?
By shifting from forecasting tariff changes to building organisations that can absorb them. Lenders may see more demand for revolving credit, supply chain finance and trade credit insurance as companies hedge the timing mismatch.
