{"id":64351,"date":"2026-02-20T20:57:39","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T19:57:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=64351"},"modified":"2026-02-20T20:59:34","modified_gmt":"2026-02-20T19:59:34","slug":"apple-will-get-its-2-billion-back-after-illegal-tariffs-are-paid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/illegale-zoelle-bekommt-apple-seine-2-milliarden-zurueck","title":{"rendered":"Illegal tariffs: Will Apple get its 2 billion back?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two billion dollars. That's the sum Apple paid as a result of Trump's controversial "reciprocal" tariffs\u2014and which could now potentially be refunded. Ten months after these tariffs were introduced, the US Supreme Court ruled that imposing them without congressional approval was illegal. The ruling is historic, but it raises as many questions as it answers. What will happen to the money? What will Trump do next? And what's next for Apple?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was foreseeable from the beginning that Trump would introduce tariffs. However, no one expected the scale of his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs from April 2025 to be so drastic. The world was surprised, economists were appalled, and the supposed mathematics behind the original tariff rates was ridiculed internationally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump continually increased the tariffs as the conflict progressed, sometimes to put pressure on entire countries, sometimes to punish individuals. Apple CEO Tim Cook was among those specifically targeted. What followed was an escalating trade war with global repercussions, affecting US companies, consumers, and entire supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The verdict: Six to three against Trump<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that imposing tariffs without congressional approval was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and clearly rejected Trump's central argument (via CNN<\/a>). Trump had claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gave him the authority to act unilaterally. Roberts rejected this argument. In his ruling, he wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither here.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He further clarified that the court did not claim any special competence in economic or foreign policy, but merely fulfilled the limited role assigned to it by Article III of the Constitution. And in this role, it was of the opinion that the IEEPA simply did not authorize the president to impose tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh voted against the ruling. In a separate opinion, Kavanaugh noted that the majority decision made no statement about whether and how the government should repay the billions it had collected. His prediction was far from optimistic: this trial would be a \"chaos\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the tariffs actually cost Apple<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

As early as February 2025, even before the exact tariff rates had been announced, it was becoming clear that Apple would be hit particularly hard. Bank of America warned in an assessment that the company might be forced to raise iPhone prices by up to ten percent. This hasn't happened so far, but the financial damage was nonetheless enormous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To date, Apple has paid approximately two billion dollars in tariffs. In addition, the company has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in restructuring its production and distribution network to at least reduce the tariff burden. Other US companies have hired additional staff simply to cope with the increasingly complex tariff calculations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How the trade war escalated<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

China was subjected to a 50 percent tariff as part of the "Liberation Day" tariffs. By comparison, previous US administrations had imposed tariffs of only around four percent based on existing laws that Trump, according to the court ruling, violated. The increase was therefore enormous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

China and many other countries reacted promptly by imposing their own tariffs to reduce imports from the US. The retaliatory measures between Washington and Beijing ultimately caused the most damage. This affected not only large technology companies like Apple, but also the many small and medium-sized US businesses that rely on imports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Impact on the stock market and consumers<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Apple's stock price plummeted after the tariffs were announced, and it wasn't alone. The entire US stock market struggled for much of 2025, and it took almost the entire year for Apple's stock to recover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consumers also felt the effects. Most PC manufacturers passed on the increased costs to their customers. Food, televisions, and computer components also became more expensive. The latter increased in price for two reasons: firstly, due to tariffs, and secondly, due to the massive increase in demand driven by the expansion of data centers and AI infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The refund chaos: Who gets the money?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the ruling, and Judge Kavanaugh himself has identified it. The ruling clarifies only the legality of the tariffs, but not how any potential refunds or reimbursements should be handled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To make matters worse, the tariffs were not paid by foreign governments, as Trump originally claimed, but by US importers. Consumers, who ultimately bore the brunt of the higher prices, will receive no refunds. If any money is paid out, it will go to the importers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And even for companies like Apple, which have invested hundreds of millions in structural adjustments in addition to the direct tariff costs, much remains unclear. Smaller US companies, completely forced out of business by the tariffs, are expected to respond with lawsuits. The ruling does not address these cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple waits, Trump plans<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court ruling is historic, but it's not the end of the story. It's highly likely the Trump administration will seek new ways to impose similar tariffs through other legal avenues or find a different legal basis. The next few days will be intense, and a new plan is likely to emerge in the coming months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Apple, the central question remains whether the two billion dollars will ever be returned. Until that is resolved, the company serves as a prime example of the economic collateral damage of a trade policy that the country's highest court has ruled illegal. One thing is certain: the last word in this trade dispute has not yet been spoken. (Image: Shutterstock \/ Tomas Ragina)<\/p>\n\n\n\n