1. United States
2. Ariz.
3. Letter

The Supreme Court has invalidated certain 2025 tariffs imposed under presidential authority, but this ruling won't lead to lower consumer prices. The decision strikes at the legal basis for the tariffs, yet it doesn't reverse the economic ripple effects already embedded in the market. This scenario exemplifies "wealth extraction," where costs burden households immediately, while any relief remains upstream. When the tariffs were enacted, importers paid duties at the border, but these costs cascaded through the supply chain: wholesalers adjusted invoices, retailers hiked prices, and consumers absorbed 60-80% of the burden in higher costs for everyday goods. These elevated prices have become the new baseline. If refunds are issued for unlawfully collected duties, they revert to importers from government funds—drawn from taxpayer revenue. No legal framework compels importers or retailers to pass savings back to consumers. Customs law attributes payments solely to the importer of record, leaving no downstream repayment path. Price reductions aren't automatic due to "asymmetric price adjustment," or "rockets and feathers": costs rise swiftly but descend slowly. In competitive markets, some gradual adjustments might occur, but in concentrated industries—dominated by a few giants—repricing pressure is minimal. Without robust competition, firms retain higher prices even as their costs drop. This dynamic merges "extraction politics," where government policies broadly impose costs on the public, with "extractive capitalism," where market power preserves those gains. The result: a durable upward wealth transfer. Americans pay thrice—once at checkout via inflated prices, again through taxes funding potential refunds, and ongoing via sustained pricing floors. The administration likely didn't foresee this, but in the grand scheme of wealth extraction, the system endures, reinforcing inequities without accountability.