The Supreme Court ruling on US tariff policy brings little relief: tariffs remain high, asymmetric effects are growing. Additional uncertainty stems from the question of whether agreements such as the one with Switzerland have now definitively been deprived of their legal basis.
At a glance
- The US Supreme Court ruling on reciprocal tariffs does not mark a return to low tariff levels.
- A new 10% tariff has been introduced under alternative legal grounds.
- Average US tariff rates remain historically elevated compared to pre-2025 levels.
- Legal uncertainty affects bilateral arrangements, including understandings with Switzerland.
- Swiss exporters face continued planning and pricing risks in the US market.
The latest ruling by the US Supreme Court on tariffs introduces new uncertainties for global trading partners. According to our analysis, the Trump administration appears determined to maintain its tariff strategy, even though these measures have not significantly reduced trade imbalances. At the same time, the end of the reciprocal tariff system paradoxically closes a period of relative stability. That stability had been supported, among other factors, by bilateral arrangements such as those between Switzerland and the United States. Under the new framework, the unresolved legal status of these agreements now represents a major source of uncertainty. Overall, this shifting environment is reshaping competitive dynamics among international trading partners.
US Supreme Court ruling reshapes the legal basis of tariffs
At the final stage, on 20 February 2026, the Supreme Court declared Trump's introduction of reciprocal tariffs invalid because they were justified by the IEEPA emergency law. This does not authorize the action in the eyes of the law. Just hours later, the government invoked another law, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to introduce a broad-based 10 per cent tariff effective 24 February for a period of 150 days. The available statutory scope is not being fully utilized: in principle, a maximum rate of 15 percent would be permissible under this provision for 150 days.
New US tariff framework increases uncertainty for trading partners
Based on imports in 2024, our experts estimate that under the new customs regime, the average tariff rate reduced from around 17 per cent to just under 14 percent. Compared to the previous average of 2.3 per cent, this is still a record high since the 1930s. We believe that some countries will be more affected than others, because different customs rates for different sectors now have a greater impact.
It is also crucial to note that the newly proclaimed 10 percent is structured as a stacked surcharge. If, for example, the original rate under international standards was 8 percent, the additional 10 percent is applied on top, resulting in a total tariff burden of 18 percent. The 15 percent ceiling agreed upon in the Swiss–U.S. Joint Statement of November 14, 2025, for example, was conceived as unstacked — meaning it functioned as an overall cap.
Additionally, what seems to be a minor tariff reduction on the one hand represents a significant burden on the US budget from the perspective of a possible refund. According to published estimates, this amount could total up to 175 billion US dollars. It is not yet clear whether unlawfully collected tariffs must be refunded – and a response could take years, according to reports.
Who ultimately bears the cost of US tariffs?
For trading partners, planning uncertainty is particularly burdensome. They do not know what will happen after the 150-day period expires on 24 July and must nevertheless keep their supply chains, margins, pricing, and contractual clauses under control.
Parliamentary approval in the summer appears critical. By then, the November midterm elections are likely to dominate the political agenda, and tariffs are unpopular. According to our analysis of price data, more than 80 percent of the costs of high tariffs are passed on to the U.S. economy and consumers. This conclusion is supported, among other things, by our analysis of price data.
Legal instruments that could sustain elevated US tariffs
The government has different legal alternatives for maintaining high tariffs. In its analysis, it first highlights that a new 150-day cycle could be invoked, although, it adds, bypassing parliament could trigger legal challenges. Secondly, there is the option to cite unfair trade practices, which has already been used in relation to China. However, across-the-board application requires strong evidence. Thirdly, an option so far only considered for specific sectors like pharmaceuticals, the government could address national security concerns. Fourthly and finally, unreasonable discrimination can justify tariffs of up to 50 per cent. However, the relevant statute created in 1930 has rarely been used in this context.
No single statute grants President Trump unlimited authority to impose high tariffs unilaterally, but the combination is sufficient to keep levels elevated for many years. This prospect seems likely, because the president believes tariffs are an essential tool for addressing the trade deficit and other concerns.
What the new US tariff regime means for Switzerland
Our assessment is shared by other experts including Rahul Sahgal, Managing Director of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce (Swiss Amcham). He too expects a period of increased uncertainty. For Switzerland, the 15 per cent global tariffs mentioned in the joint US and Swiss statements are now obsolete. Formally, the US's negotiating position may have weakened, he says, but it is important for Switzerland to remain actively involved in the negotiations.
Without an agreement with the United States, the risk of higher tariffs after the 150 days have expired cannot be ruled out
Rahul Sahgal, Managing Director, Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce
He adds:
At the same time, negotiations always offer opportunities for improving results in key areas.
Swiss exporters are likely to face increased planning uncertainty. Companies with exposure to the US market may need to review pricing strategies, contractual clauses and supply-chain arrangements. The impact will vary across sectors depending on the final configuration of tariff measures after the 150-day period.
