The news: Several conservative justices on the US Supreme Court appeared skeptical on Wednesday that President Donald Trump has the emergency authority to impose many of his administration’s tariffs, including the so-called “Liberation Day” duties and levies on Canada, Mexico, and China.

Why it matters: A ruling against Trump could upend the US retail sector, which has already been radically reshaped this year by the administration’s shifting tariff policies.

• The levies have redrawn the retail landscape, with nearly half of all US imports now subject to duties, according to a New York Times analysis of Census Bureau trade data. Roughly 29% of all US imports are subject to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is the law under review.
• The impact of those tariffs on consumer prices has been muted so far as companies stockpiled goods in advance and absorbed costs through thinner margins. But that buffer is fading fast. Goldman Sachs projects that consumers will bear about 55% of the tariff burden by year-end. Similarly, Bank of America expects tariffs to add roughly 0.5 percentage points to the Federal Reserve’s core PCE inflation gauge.
• Consumers have taken note. Eighty-five percent of holiday shoppers expect higher prices due to tariffs, per the National Retail Federation. Meanwhile, an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found 63% of Americans say tariffs are fueling inflation, and 55% believe they’ve hurt their family finances. Those perceptions are dampening spending and adding strain to an already fragile retail environment.

Our take: Even if the Supreme Court rules against the administration, a return to “normal” is unlikely. If the decision goes the other way, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that Trump still has other levers to pull, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs on national security grounds, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which targets unfair trade practices. Those tools, however, come with stricter limits and could invite further legal challenges. For now, the only certainty is continued uncertainty.