Treasury Secretary Bessent Expresses Optimism on Supreme Court Tariff Review Amid Market Gains

This analysis is based on the Fox Business report [1] published on November 5, 2025, covering Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s comments on the Supreme Court’s review of Trump tariff legality. The event coincided with landmark Supreme Court hearings examining whether President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs [4].

The broader market showed modest positive sentiment on November 5, 2025, with major indices posting gains: S&P 500 (+0.39%), NASDAQ (+0.61%), Dow Jones (+0.45%), and Russell 2000 (+1.47%) [0]. Tariff-sensitive sectors demonstrated notable strength, with Energy leading at +2.82% and Industrials at +2.33%, while Technology showed more modest gains at +0.40% [0].

Retail stocks directly affected by tariff policy showed divergent performance. Target (+2.18%) outperformed significantly, suggesting market optimism about tariff resolution, while Walmart declined (-0.78%) and Amazon posted modest gains (+0.35%) [0]. This divergence reflects varying tariff exposure and pricing strategies among major retailers.

The Trump administration’s tariffs have generated substantial government revenue, with fiscal year 2025 total duty revenue reaching $215.2 billion according to Treasury Department data [4]. However, consumers are increasingly bearing these costs, with Goldman Sachs economists estimating consumers will ultimately bear more than 50% of total tariff costs, up from about 22% as of mid-year [6].

The Supreme Court cases (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections) represent “the biggest trade case the Supreme Court has ever heard” according to trade lawyer Tim Brightbill [2]. The outcome could fundamentally reshape presidential trade authority and create long-term policy volatility.

Amazon’s third-party sellers are “far more exposed to tariff-driven cost increases” according to CommerceIQ CEO Guru Hariharan [6], explaining Amazon’s steepest price increases at 12.8% year-to-date compared to Target (5.5%) and Walmart (5.3%) [6]. This exposure creates particular vulnerability for Amazon’s business model.

The modest market gains suggest investors may be pricing in multiple potential outcomes. Energy and Industrial sectors’ outperformance could reflect optimism about continued protectionist policies, while Technology’s muted response may indicate concerns about supply chain disruptions.

• Regulatory Uncertainty
  : The Supreme Court decision could fundamentally alter U.S. trade policy framework, creating significant market volatility
• Consumer Inflation Pressure
  : Continued tariff pass-through could accelerate inflation, particularly as Goldman Sachs suggests consumers may bear over 50% of costs [6]
• Supply Chain Disruption
  : Different tariff implementation approaches could require significant supply chain reconfigurations
• Retail Sector Vulnerability
  : Companies heavily exposed to international trade, particularly retailers with complex supply chains, may face substantial operational challenges

• Supreme Court decision timeline and scope of ruling
• Administration’s alternative tariff implementation strategies
• International trade relations and potential retaliatory measures
• Consumer spending data and retail sales impact
• Corporate Q3 earnings guidance on tariff effects

: The Supreme Court’s decision could create significant market volatility and fundamentally alter the U.S. trade policy framework. Companies heavily exposed to international trade, particularly retailers with complex supply chains, may face substantial operational and financial challenges regardless of the ruling outcome.

The Supreme Court is hearing landmark cases on Trump tariff legality with Treasury Secretary expressing optimism about the outcome. Markets showed modest gains with tariff-sensitive sectors outperforming. Retail stocks diverged based on tariff exposure, with Amazon facing the greatest pressure due to its third-party seller model. Tariff revenues have been substantial but consumers are bearing increasing costs. The ruling timeline and administration contingency plans remain unclear, creating uncertainty for business planning. The decision could have far-reaching implications for presidential trade authority and market stability.