Ever since President Donald Trump took to the Rose Garden last April brandishing a posterboard outlining tariffs on countries around the world, the response to his trade policy has been almost universally negative among designers, importers and manufacturers. But now that the Supreme Court has ruled many of Trump’s tariffs illegal, the industry is reacting more with caution than celebration.

“There’s still a lot of uncertainty, and uncertainty’s not good,” says Tim Stump of mergers and acquisitions advisory firm Stump & Company. “There’s just a lot of noise out there about refunds, and what the president will do next. We need the noise to die down so everyone can get back to business.”

Much of the caution stems from the fact that the situation remains kinetic. Trump has already enacted a global 10 percent tariff under a new legal framework, with a promise to increase that number to 15 percent and explore additional levies through other executive pathways. Meanwhile, the tariffs on imported upholstery, cabinets and vanities—which were enacted in September 2025 under a different law, called Section 232—remain in place. In short, many executives simply do not believe their tariff bill will meaningfully decrease.

“I think we’re left scratching our heads on the impact,” says Lee Mayer, CEO of Havenly, the digital-first conglomerate that counts The Expert, The Inside, Interior Define, The Citizenry, St. Frank and Burrow among its brands. “A large portion of the tariffs we are subject to are the 232 upholstery tariffs, which appear to remain in place. Additionally, after watching a little bit of the president’s [press conference], it seems that there’s a determination to make up for those tariffs using other authority, which seems ominous, and adds to instability, which I broadly view as a bad thing.”

The volatility of the situation will also likely kick off a flurry of conversations about pricing. After spending the past year either raising prices or adding tariff surcharges to their invoices, vendors will likely face some pressure to revisit their lists once again. (Speaking off the record to discuss an unsettled situation, several trade-focused vendors said they were planning to keep tariff surcharges in place at least until the fog has cleared.)

Finally, there’s the question of refunds. The Supreme Court did not lay out a clear pathway to return the more than $133 billion that has been collected under IEEPA, the 1977 law the president had used to justify the first round of global tariffs. However, more than a thousand companies preemptively sued the U.S. government to recoup their tariff losses, and this ruling will likely inspire many more to do the same. However, in the home industry and beyond, pursuing a refund will require a legal investment that smaller businesses might not be willing or able to make.

Though some companies might relish the prospect of clawing back tariff money, several executives privately expressed concern that if they pursue reimbursement, their customers might in turn look to get money from them. At this early stage, the legal landscape is not at all clear. However, the overall mood among industry insiders is that this latest development will likely result in more complications, not more profits.

“[I’m] happy to see the Supreme Court support (or remind) Congress of their role and duty in regulating trade,” says Alex Shuford, CEO of Rock House Farm, the North Carolina–based family of furniture brands that includes Century, Hickory Chair and Highland House. “Unfortunately, we now have to deal with the uncertainty of how this ruling will be handled in the ‘practical,’ meaning lawsuits and further distraction. Also, unfortunately, it feels certain that a wide array of other defensive and offensive trade tools will get unleashed in the aftermath. I fear the fatigue of it all on the everyday businesspeople and consumers who actually hold this economy up on their shoulders.”