The Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling: What Fashion Needs to Know

TWIF: The Future of Pat McGrath; Loewe’s Refresh & More

Who’s up and down in the business of fashion, luxury and beauty this week.

1. Puig, the owner of Charlotte Tilbury and Rabanne perfume, sales rose 8 percent to about $6 billion and profits surged 12 percent last year, driven by strong demand for makeup and skincare even as its perfume segment moderated.

2. Maison Margiela remains a bright spot for owner OTB group, whose overall sales dipped 5 percent last year while Margiela jumped 8.4 percent, fuelled by John Galliano’s couture halo and current creative director Glenn Martens’ marketing momentum.

3. Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez’s first Loewe campaign is a sun-drenched triumph shot by Talia Chetrit and starring rising young actors including Beau Gadsdon and Talia Ryder.

4. Pat McGrath received $30 million in bankruptcy financing from distressed-focused investment firm GDA Luma, but the brand faces deep uncertainty regarding its ability to stabilise operations.

5. Quince tapped Deciem alum Dakota Kate Isaacs as its first head of brand strategy and narrative, signalling a new focus on original brand storytelling.

6. Adam Baidawi replaced Will Welch as GQ’s chief editor in the latest masthead shake-up at publisher Condé Nast.

7. The EU has opened an investigation into Shein over illegal products and concerns about the platform’s addictive design under its Digital Services Act.

8. Brendon Babenzien has exited J.Crew after a four-year prep revival while the American retailer has yet to name a new men’s creative director.

9. The New York Times examined the ties between Naomi Campbell, the world’s most famous supermodel, and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Catch up on all the news of the week in fashion, luxury and beauty here.

The Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling: What Fashion Needs to Know

The US Supreme Court overturned president Donald Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Friday, striking down the sweeping duties that had cost businesses billions in fees and opening the door to a flood of potential petitions for refunds on levies already paid.

In a decision that had been anxiously awaited for months, the court ruled six to three that Trump did not have authority to levy tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — a 1977 statute meant for emergencies, not routine trade policy. While lower courts had found that Trump exceeded his authority in his use of the act, his tariffs had been allowed to remain in force as legal proceedings carried on. (The ruling does not affect tariffs levied under other legal bases, such as the Section 232 tariffs Trump has put on products such as cars, semiconductors, steel and aluminum.)

Writing for the court’s majority, chief justice John Roberts stated Congress alone has the power to impose tariffs during peacetime, and referring to a previous Supreme Court ruling, noted “the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. He cannot.”

Trump called the decision a “disgrace” at a White House meeting with US governors, according to The New York Times.

Fashion stocks rose modestly after the ruling, with companies ranging from Vans owner VF Corp. to Abercrombie & Fitch seeing gains of up to 4 percent. Many investors had been anticipating the Supreme Court would rule against the tariffs after several conservative justices expressed scepticism of the Trump administration’s argument in a November hearing.

Trump’s April 2 tariff announcement sent a shockwave through the fashion industry, which imports billions of dollars worth of goods into the US and saw some of the largest manufacturing hubs, such as China and Vietnam, hit with the steepest levies. Those tariffs were later reduced as the US struck trade deals, but additional duties have remained in place on apparel and footwear sourcing countries. As of November 2025, the weighted average of tariffs on apparel and footwear imports to the US was 36 percent, up from 13 percent prior to the April announcement, according to the BoF-McKinsey State of Fashion 2026.

In a note to clients following the ruling, Needham analyst Tom Nikic called it “extremely important” for apparel and footwear brands, given that the IEEPA tariffs accounted for the bulk of tariffs dropped on the sector last year. “While the administration may seek out other avenues to levy tariffs on imports, at the very least this is a near-term positive for the group,” he wrote.

The tariff fight is expected to continue despite Friday’s Supreme Court announcement. The administration has said it will seek to reestablish tariffs under other trade laws, with US trade representative Jamieson Greer telling The New York Times in January that it would “start the next day” after an unfavourable ruling to reimpose duties.

In a January note to clients, TD Cowen said that the administration could use a combination of other legal measures to replace the IEEPA tariffs, such as sections of the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930. “These replacement authorities could be activated very quickly — potentially within 24 hours of the Court’s ruling,” Cowen analyst Tristan Margot wrote.

It’s uncertain whether these measures would be as extensive as the IEEPA tariffs and would extend to apparel and footwear.

By Marc Bain and Cathaleen Chen

Go Deeper:

US Supreme Court Overturns Trump’s Emergency Tariffs

The ruling strikes down the so-called ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs that sent a shockwave through the fashion industry and sets the stage for a rush of brands trying to recoup duties they’ve already paid.