After the Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling, the Real Work Begins for Walmart Suppliers

What the Court Actually Decided

The Supreme Court’s February 20 ruling struck down one of the most consequential trade policy tools of the past year. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping global tariffs exceeded his authority. Congress, not the executive branch, holds the constitutional power to lay and collect tariffs, and broad or ambiguous statutory language cannot transfer that power to the White House.

The tariffs at issue, imposed under IEEPA beginning in early 2025, applied to imports from virtually every major U.S. trading partner and grew to represent roughly half of all customs duties collected each month. For the retail sector, and for Walmart’s global supply base in particular, those duties were a live cost embedded in nearly every China- and Vietnam-sourced import. Clothing, footwear, consumer electronics, housewares, and discretionary general merchandise — the categories that dominate Walmart’s non-grocery assortment — were all directly in their path.

The ruling does not unwind Trump’s entire tariff architecture. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles remain. Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods remain. Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced its intent to reimpose a 10% global tariff rate using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that does carry explicit tariff authority but caps the rate at 15% and the duration at 150 days without congressional action. Those constraints would prevent Section 122 from recreating the highest reciprocal rates that IEEPA had imposed on some trading partners. The trade war has not ended. It has changed venues.

The Refund Question Is Unsettled, and That Matters for Your P&L

For Walmart suppliers who have been paying IEEPA tariffs since February 2025, the ruling raises an immediate and financially material question: do you get your money back?

The short answer is probably some of it, eventually, through a process that does not yet exist in a clear form.

Estimates of total IEEPA tariff revenue collected range from roughly $133 billion through December 2025 to a projected $175 billion or more when accounting for early 2026 collections, according to analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model. That would represent one of the largest potential government refund obligations in modern U.S. history. The Supreme Court’s ruling was silent on how refunds should be administered.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of three dissenters, acknowledged in his opinion that the process is likely to be complicated, noting that many importers had already passed costs on to downstream buyers. Importers that filed protective actions at the Court of International Trade before their entries liquidated may be better positioned to recover duties. Those who did not file may face a harder road. The mechanics, whether through court-directed reliquidation, post-summary corrections, or administrative protests, will take time, require documentation, and demand coordination across customs brokers, trade counsel, and finance teams.

For suppliers operating on thin retail margins and high import volumes, the distinction between “we may get a refund” and “we have a refund” is not academic. Until those dollars are in hand, cost structures should be modeled on current reality, not projected recoveries.

Walmart’s Cost Pressure Doesn’t Pause for Legal Rulings

One dynamic that did not change on Friday: Walmart’s expectation that its suppliers absorb cost increases before they reach the shelf.

Throughout 2025, as IEEPA tariffs escalated, Walmart engaged in aggressive supplier negotiations to offset landed cost increases. The company pressed Chinese suppliers to reduce prices by as much as 10% per round of tariffs, a posture firm enough to draw a formal response from China’s Ministry of Commerce. Walmart was absorbing some costs rather than passing them immediately to consumers, but CEO Doug McMillon was clear that the company could not absorb everything “given the magnitude of the tariffs” and acknowledged publicly that prices on tariff-exposed goods were rising.

That strategy reflects Walmart’s operating model: protect everyday low prices at the consumer level, extract concessions further up the supply chain, and maintain price competitiveness relative to rivals. Roughly 40% of Walmart’s total merchandise mix is imported, a figure that reflects the large grocery footprint, which is mostly domestic. In general merchandise, import dependence is considerably higher. By comparison, approximately 50% of Target’s merchandise is imported, which gave Walmart a structural advantage in absorbing tariff shocks without equivalent price action. That insulation reinforced Walmart’s competitive position and accelerated share gains from value-seeking shoppers during one of the most volatile trade environments in decades.

Walmart spent the past year recalibrating its cost benchmarks downward, and those recalibrations do not automatically reverse when the legal environment shifts. If you accepted a price concession under tariff pressure, do not assume it will be returned without a renegotiation. Walmart scrutinizes every line item of cost before agreeing to any supplier price change and requires a minimum of 60 days written notice before any cost increase takes effect. In practice, experienced suppliers approach that conversation closer to 90 days out, and they come prepared with documentation: commodity cost data, supplier invoices showing pre- and post-tariff pricing, and a clear picture of how the increase affects Walmart’s margin relative to competitors. Buyers will ask all of those questions. They always do.

Tariff relief also introduces a timing dimension that cuts both ways. Walmart knows that if your costs genuinely declined because IEEPA tariffs were invalidated, that information is visible in the same market data its merchants track. A supplier seeking to renegotiate in the weeks following the ruling should be prepared to explain not just current costs but what the trajectory looks like under replacement tariff scenarios, because Walmart’s buyers are asking exactly that question internally.

Compliance Standards Don’t Soften in a Volatile Environment

Cost disruption periods tend to coincide with tighter compliance scrutiny, not looser. When supply chains are stressed, Walmart’s operational systems surface problems faster, and the financial consequences land harder.

Walmart’s On-Time In-Full program requires suppliers to meet demanding thresholds: 98% on-time for collect-ready shipments, 90% for prepaid, and 95% in-full, with a 3% cost-of-goods penalty applied to non-compliant cases. Those fines stack on top of other deductions and can erode margin quietly if suppliers aren’t monitoring their OTIF scorecard in Retail Link on a weekly basis. The Supplier Quality Excellence Program adds a second layer of accountability, covering barcode accuracy, labeling, packaging integrity, and purchase order precision. Items received at a distribution center must match the PO exactly.

During the tariff disruption of 2025, many suppliers were managing sourcing pivots, delayed shipments, inventory timing mismatches, and order cancellations simultaneously. Each of those operational pressures creates compliance exposure. Suppliers who took their eye off OTIF and SQEP performance to manage cost negotiations may be sitting on deduction liabilities they have not fully audited. Walmart’s systems capture all of it.

The period following a major policy shift is an ideal time to run a clean audit of your compliance standing in Retail Link, reconcile any open deductions through the Accounts Payable Dispute Portal, and verify that your item data in Supplier One is current and accurate. A buyer conversation about cost structure is considerably more productive when your performance metrics are clean. It is considerably harder when the buyer can pull up a screen showing chronic out-of-stock or repeated OTIF failures.

The Policy Environment Remains Volatile

The trade policy picture suppliers face heading into the back half of 2026 is not the same one they faced entering 2025, but it is not stable either.

The administration has signaled clearly that it will pursue tariff objectives through other statutory mechanisms. Section 232 authorities, which require a national security finding but carry broad legal precedent, have already been used to impose duties on steel, aluminum, cars, and furniture. Section 301 actions against China, which require a USTR investigation, remain active and can be expanded. The announced Section 122 global tariff of 10% is time-limited by statute but could be extended through congressional action if the administration pursues it.

Analysts who have examined the available tools consistently note that the administration’s tariff ambitions are not constrained by the IEEPA ruling, only its preferred instrument. The effective tariff rate on imports will fall from roughly 17% to approximately 7% if IEEPA tariffs are not replaced, but the stated intent is to replace most of them. How closely replacement rates mirror the invalidated ones will depend on the speed of statutory proceedings and the administration’s appetite for political risk.

For suppliers building 2026 cost models, the prudent assumption is not that tariffs will collapse. The tariff environment will remain elevated and unpredictable for the remainder of the year. Product categories with deep China and Vietnam sourcing exposure — footwear, apparel, consumer electronics, and many general merchandise categories — carry the highest ongoing risk.

What the Ruling Means for Walmart Marketplace Sellers

The IEEPA ruling’s implications for third-party sellers on Walmart.com are distinct from those facing traditional 1P suppliers, and they deserve separate treatment.

For the past year, Walmart Marketplace sellers competing in apparel, home goods, and consumer electronics faced a difficult dynamic: their own import costs were rising under IEEPA while their most aggressive price competition, primarily Temu and Shein, was being structurally degraded by the same trade policy environment. The elimination of de minimis exemptions for Chinese shipments in mid-2025 hit both platforms hard. Temu’s U.S. daily active users fell by more than half. Shein saw weekly sales drop sharply. Both were forced to raise prices, pull back advertising, and restructure their logistics operations away from the direct-from-China model that had made them formidable competitors.

That created breathing room on Walmart.com for domestic sellers and importers using U.S.-based fulfillment, who absorb tariffs on bulk shipments but avoid the additional duty burden that destabilized the direct-ship model. With IEEPA rates now potentially reduced or eliminated, that competitive dynamic becomes more nuanced. Some of the cost pressure that had been holding Chinese marketplace competition in check may ease. Sellers who benefited from Temu’s stumble should monitor whether rate relief on IEEPA-affected imports allows direct-from-China sellers to rebuild price competitiveness on the platform.

More broadly, Walmart.com’s ongoing expansion as a marketplace creates consistent pressure on price transparency and item-level competitiveness. Walmart’s algorithm surfaces pricing, availability, and fulfillment performance as core ranking factors. Sellers who used tariff disruption as cover for price increases that were not fully cost-justified are likely to feel that exposure now. The platform’s price-matching visibility is unforgiving.

Category Implications: Not All Suppliers Feel This Equally

The ruling’s practical impact varies significantly by sourcing profile, product category, and how deeply individual suppliers had absorbed versus passed on duty costs.

Footwear suppliers face one of the more acute situations. Nearly all footwear sold in the U.S. is imported, and Vietnam, which carries Section 301 exposure in some categories, is central to the industry’s supply chain. Even with IEEPA rates removed, the cumulative tariff burden on footwear from Vietnam or China can remain significant depending on HTS classification and remaining duty structures.

Apparel and discretionary hard goods experienced some of the steepest IEEPA-driven price increases at retail and stand to benefit most directly from rate relief if refunds materialize and replacement tariffs land at lower levels. These are also the categories where Walmart has been most aggressive in pushing price reductions or eliminating high-priced items from the assortment entirely.

Grocery and consumables suppliers were largely insulated from IEEPA impacts because the majority of Walmart’s grocery inventory is domestically sourced. For those suppliers, the ruling changes little operationally, though commodity cost pressures driven by weather and agricultural market dynamics remain relevant.

What to Do Right Now

The ruling creates a narrow but real window of opportunity, and the clock on several of these actions is already running.

Suppliers who imported IEEPA-affected goods should engage customs brokers and trade attorneys now to assess whether protective filings at the Court of International Trade are still available or advisable. Eligibility will depend on whether entries have liquidated and what reliquidation instructions CBP ultimately issues. Waiting for the government to initiate the process without proactive documentation is likely to result in lost recovery.

Any renegotiation with a Walmart buyer should be built on data, not general appeals to a changed environment. Walmart’s merchants track the same commodity indices and market data you do. If IEEPA relief is real in your cost structure, quantify it precisely. If replacement tariffs under Section 122 or 301 sustain a meaningful portion of the burden, model that clearly and bring it to the table. Buyers respond to specifics. And if you are in a category where Walmart has been pressing for price reductions, be prepared to address your GMROII contribution directly — Walmart’s scorecard ultimately grades suppliers on the return they generate against inventory investment, not on cost structure alone.

Before any major buyer interaction, run a full audit of your OTIF and SQEP standing. Clean metrics strengthen your negotiating position. Open deductions weaken it. The two conversations are not as separate as suppliers sometimes treat them.

On sourcing strategy, the ruling does not resolve the underlying question suppliers have been grappling with since 2018: how much concentration in China and Vietnam is acceptable given ongoing policy risk? The case for diversification across Southeast Asia, India, and near-shore markets in Central America has not weakened. The experience of 2025 demonstrated how quickly landed costs can shift when the policy environment moves.

The View From Here

The retail industry’s reaction to Friday’s ruling was broadly positive, and not without reason. The court drew a meaningful constitutional boundary around presidential tariff power, established that Congress cannot cede its taxing authority through vague statutory language, and created legal precedent that constrains the most aggressive unilateral trade interventions.

Walmart’s supplier base operates in a business environment, not a legal one, and that business environment has not fundamentally changed. Consumer price sensitivity is elevated. Walmart expanded private label penetration throughout 2025 in categories where branded suppliers passed on cost increases, a trend that does not reverse when tariff policy shifts. The Walmart Marketplace platform continues to expand, increasing price transparency and competitive pressure across every segment. The administration’s stated intent to rebuild tariff structures under more durable statutory authority means the rate relief visible on paper today may be narrower and shorter-lived in practice than the headlines suggest.

The suppliers who navigate this period most effectively will be those treating the ruling not as a reprieve but as a moment to sharpen cost models, accelerate refund recovery where possible, audit compliance standing, and pressure-test their sourcing footprint against a range of policy scenarios, not just the most favorable one.

The trade war has not ended. One of its instruments has been ruled unconstitutional. That is a meaningful distinction.

Winning With Walmart

Winning With Walmart is an independent platform for suppliers, sellers, solution providers, and industry experts.

Articles are developed by staff editors, contributing experts, and trusted partners.

Some are researched and drafted with the assistance of AI tools and are reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by Winning With Walmart editors before publication.

Editorial judgment, sourcing decisions, and final approval rest with the publication's human editors in every case.

We are committed to accuracy and fairness. If you believe this article contains an error, we welcome your feedback.