![\"Retail](\"https:\/\/dmsretail.com\/RetailNews\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/RETAIL-ONLINE-TRAINING-728-X-90.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling<\/strong> on Friday striking down many of U.S. President Donald Trump\u2019s tariffs, including some of those levied against Canada, is drawing much attention and reaction throughout the country as organizations and businesses try to determine what this all means.<\/p>\n But right after Trump announced a new 10 per cent global tariff \u2018effective immediately.<\/p>\n \u201cToday\u2019s Supreme Court ruling against much of the recent use of U.S. tariffs is a welcome development for small businesses on both sides of the Canada\/U.S. border. But while this decision weakens the administration\u2019s justification for tariffs, it is likely that other tariff and trade tools may be used to accomplish the same end,\u201d said Dan Kelly, President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB)<\/strong>, Canada\u2019s largest association of small and medium-sized businesses with 103,000 members across every industry and region.<\/p>\n \u201cUnfortunately, this ruling will not help address the uncertainty related to Canada\/U.S. trade, nor the crippling tariffs on steel and aluminum that have been imposed by both countries.<\/p>\n \u201cStill, there is the potential for relief for non-CUSMA compliant goods. In a recent survey, 27% of small businesses said they were harmed by tariffs on non-CUSMA compliant goods, especially as many small firms struggle to comply with the confusing regime.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhile we should not expect the administration to end its efforts to impose tariffs, this decision may help sway other US political leaders against this harmful approach as both countries review the CUSMA agreement. While uncertainty continues, this is a good day for Canadian businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n George Minakakis, Founder and CEO of Inception Retail Group,<\/strong> said: \u201cNever mistake an 800-pound gorilla in the room for anything else other than an 800-pound gorilla.<\/p>\n \u201cToday\u2019s ruling may remove one tariff risk for Canada, but it does nothing for the auto, steel, and aluminum sectors. This President can continue to move forward, securing the relocation of work for his nation and its economy by sustaining these tariffs.<\/p>\n \u201cBut Canada\u2019s story isn\u2019t just tariffs; it is uncertainty. I don\u2019t believe CUSMA will be easy to negotiate, but this ruling may temper retaliation tactics during those negotiations. I would not rule out new tariffs as the US may test other legal paths despite this ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cDuring CUSMA negotiations, Canada should try to have sector tariffs removed, but that will likely not change the made in America by Americans MAGA narrative. Many in the US support this policy from Washington. And also the continued push for US corporations to return home and for foreign corporations to build in America.<\/p>\n \u201cThe problem is that while the US accounts for 4.2% of the global population, it also accounts for 25.7% of global GDP. The world needs the US economy! However, the current global shifts, from tariffs, unpredictable GDP, food inflation, and the proliferation of AI, mean that Canada is clearly not exempt from challenges ahead. There are many difficult decisions that businesses of all sizes will face over the next two years.<\/p>\n \u201cMunicipalities have always played a role in nation-building; today, each must reimagine the opportunities ahead and determine how to make their communities and local economies trade- and tech-ready. Tariffs are a reminder that national strength is local. When global policy shifts, the communities with strong economic ecosystems protect jobs and keep investment moving.<\/p>\n \u201cWe cannot afford to think for one minute that things will resolve themselves or that they will go back to how they used to be. The US is moving in a different direction; that is the 800-pound gorilla, don\u2019t mistake it for anything else.\u201d<\/p>\n Bruce Winder, a retail analyst and author,<\/strong> said: \u201cToday\u2019s Supreme Court decision could result in US importers receiving rebates from the government on duties paid since the tariffs were put in play. This could result in a one-time benefit to shareholders in the form of dividends or share buybacks.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think that US retail prices will drop though as new higher prices have been normalized overall. Some US retailers may lower prices but that may be the exception.<\/p>\n \u201cFor Canadian retailers we may see some decrease of cost of goods if they buy from US distributors importing from tariffed countries. There may also be less pressure from direct to factory suppliers from subject countries who import into the U.S. as it relates to first costs retailers pay to import into Canada.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis all assumes that the administration does not find an alternative way of keeping duties in play.\u201d<\/p>\n Sylvain Charlebois, Senior Director, Agri-Food Analytics Lab, Dalhousie University,<\/strong> said: \u201cThe decision removes a layer of uncertainty that\u2019s plagued cross-border supply chains. Retailers that source products from the U.S. or that compete with U.S. imports now have greater predictability in pricing and inventory planning, which is essential for managing margins in a highly competitive food retail sector.<\/p>\n \u201cThis ruling is not just a legal rebuke \u2014 it could have tangible effects on food retail pricing, supply chains and purchasing behaviour on both sides of the border. While much depends on how U.S. trade policy evolves, Canadian grocers may welcome a shift away from broad tariff regimes that had been driving up costs.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0Gary Newbury, an expert in end-to-end retail supply chain networks<\/strong>, said: \u201cThe ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States is significant, but it does not remove uncertainty, it merely reshapes it.\u201d<\/p>\n He outlined the following three scenarios.<\/p>\n Scenario 1: Broad tariff rollback on CUSMA-aligned goods<\/strong> Scenario 2: Sectoral tariffs persist or selectively expand<\/strong> Scenario 3: Policy workaround by Trump administration<\/strong> Bottom line for Canada<\/strong> The U.S. Supreme Court ruling to strike down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) represents a legal rebuke of presidential overreach but does nothing to resolve the ongoing trade crisis threatening Canadian jobs and key industrial sectors, said Unifor<\/strong>. <\/p>\n \u201cThis ruling exposes how abusive and legally flawed the IEEPA tariffs were, but Canadian workers should not mistake this for a victory,\u201d said Unifor National President Lana Payne<\/strong>. \u201cThe risk to Canadian jobs remains severe, with the potential to even increase if Trump looks for new ways to impose tariffs or target Canadian jobs and investment.\u201d<\/p>\n While the Court confirmed that IEEPA does not grant President Trump authority to impose sweeping \u2018economic emergency\u201d tariffs, the ruling does not end the U.S. trade war against Canada with industry-targeted Section 232 tariffs and other punishing measures still in place, explained Unifor, which is Canada\u2019s largest union in the private sector, representing 320,000 workers in every major area of the economy. <\/p>\n Although the Supreme Court decision removes specific IEEPA tariffs, U.S. officials have already signalled their intent to reinstate or replace them using alternative legal authorities.<\/p>\n \u201cThe most damaging tariffs Canada faces were never IEEPA tariffs in the first place, because the Trump Administration chose to exempt goods that comply with our trade agreement,\u201d said Payne. \u201cHowever, so-called \u2018national security\u2019 tariffs under Section 232, targeting auto, steel, aluminum, and wood products remain fully in force and could be expanded at any time.\u201d<\/p>\n The decision also has no impact on long-running anti-dumping duties, including the softwood lumber dispute, which continues to punish Canadian workers and communities, it added.<\/p>\n More from Retail Insider:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/retailinsider.b-cdn.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Dan-Kelly-8.jpeg\")
![\"George](\"https:\/\/retailinsider.b-cdn.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/George-Minakakis.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/retailinsider.b-cdn.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Bruce-Winder.jpeg\")
![\"Sylvain](\"https:\/\/retailinsider.b-cdn.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Sylvain-Charlebois.jpeg\")
\u201cIf tariffs tied to emergency powers are removed, Canadian exporters regain short-term cost competitiveness and margin stability, particularly in integrated supply chains like automotive and manufacturing. This would ease pricing pressure and restore some predictability in cross-border flows. However, it is more of a reset in the short term than a resolution.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSteel, aluminum, and lumber remain exposed. These sectors have already absorbed structural cost increases, and continued tariffs would reinforce a two-speed economy, where some industries recover while others remain constrained. Removal here would be far more meaningful to Canada\u2019s GDP and employment base than broader symbolic relief.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"Gary](\"https:\/\/retailinsider.b-cdn.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Gary-Newbury-Professional-Headshot-1200x1200.jpg\")
\u201cIt would be na\u00efve to assume this is the end of tariff risk. Donald Trump\u2019s team will likely pivot to alternative legal mechanisms to maintain trade pressure and gain advantage over international partners. The strategy has always been leverage, not legality.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis ruling reduces legal overreach, but not strategic intent. Canadian businesses should not interpret this as long awaited stability returning, but as a signal to double down on trade negotiations with the US, strengthening domestic supply chains (including rapid dissolution of interprovincial barriers) and to accelerate trade diversification reducing dependency on unpredictable U.S. trade policy. The challenge for Canadian businesses is to exploit foreign markets where our shipping costs, favourable exchange rates and lower labour and energy costs provide a competitive advantage,\u201d said Newbury.<\/p>\n![\"Lana](\"https:\/\/retailinsider.b-cdn.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Lana-Payne.jpg\")