NextFin News - The Supreme Court's decision to strike down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs should have been the best news in years for Nike and Starbucks. Instead, it has barely moved the needle on their share prices, and the reason exposes a deeper truth about this market: for the companies that tariffs hurt the most, the cost of imports was never the binding constraint.
On Feb. 20, 2026, the justices ruled 6-3 in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections that the president had exceeded his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act when he imposed the "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs and related levies. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority:
"Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly."
Within hours, Trump signed a 10% global import surcharge - raised to 15% the following day - under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to replace the invalidated duties. The market's verdict, seven months on, is unambiguous.
Nike, which had embedded a 7.7% tariff cost into its fiscal 2026 guidance - roughly $1.5 billion - now trades at $38.40 as of Sept. 4, down about 38% for 2026 alone and roughly 76% from its November 2021 record. Starbucks, which credited tariff refunds for a chunk of its third-quarter margin expansion, sits near $105, up about 24% over the year but still below its 52-week high of $110.51. The relief rally in tariff-exposed stocks proved fleeting because the tariff was a symptom of a weaker disease: a global consumer that stopped spending.
The Relief Rally That Wasn't
The initial market read was textbook. Nine of the 11 S&P 500 sectors rose on the day, communication services led with a 2.65% gain, and consumer discretionary added 1.27%. The S&P 500 gained 1.08% for the week while the Nasdaq climbed 1.51%. Jefferies named Yeti Holdings, Nike and SharkNinja as the clearest beneficiaries, with analyst Randal Konik writing in a client note:
"SCOTUS invalidated IEEPA tariffs today, eliminating emergency-based duties on imports. This is a clear positive for consumer discretionary with high import exposure, easing cost pressures and margin drag."
That logic was correct as far as it went. It just didn't go far enough.
The gap between the tariff math and the stock math is the story. Nike's $1.5 billion tariff burden, spread across a $46.4 billion revenue base, is real money - but it is also a one-time accounting event. What the market is pricing now is not the cost of goods that came in the door last year; it is the revenue that will not come back next year. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2026, Nike reported earnings of 72 cents a share, well above the 13-cent consensus, yet almost all of it - 52 cents - came from the expected recovery of import tariffs. Strip that out and underlying earnings were 20 cents. Revenue fell 1% in the quarter and 2% for the full year on a currency-neutral basis. Nike Direct, the company's once-high-flying direct-to-consumer engine, declined 8% for the year. Converse fell 32%.
Starbucks tells the mirror-image version of the same story. Its third-quarter results, reported in late July, beat estimates: adjusted earnings of 85 cents against 66 cents expected, global comparable sales up 7.9%, North American comps up 8.1%. CEO Brian Niccol called it "the turn in our turnaround," and on the earnings call said, "It's clear proof that our Back to Starbucks plan is working." But the quarter's consolidated operating margin expansion - 60 basis points to 10.5% on a GAAP basis, and 430 basis points to 14.4% on a non-GAAP basis - leaned on tariff refunds and lower inflation, while international revenue fell 34% to $1.3 billion after the company sold a 60% stake in its China business to Boyu Capital in a $4 billion deal. The tariff refund made the income statement look better. The China exit made the growth story look smaller.
Why the Refund Does Not Fix the Business
There are four reasons the tariff relief has failed to translate into durable equity performance, and only one of them is about tariffs at all.
First, the refund is a one-time gain, not a recurring margin. A tariff refund shows up once in earnings and never repeats. Investors learned this lesson the hard way. When Nike reported its fiscal third quarter on March 31, 2026, revenue came in flat at $11.3 billion and down 3% on a currency-neutral basis, gross margin fell 130 basis points to 40.2% under the weight of higher tariffs, and earnings per share dropped 35% to 35 cents. The stock fell more than 15% in the sessions that followed, closing near $44.63 - a level not seen in 12 years. That was before the fourth-quarter refund even hit. The market is not rewarding companies for recovering costs it already wrote off; it is asking whether the underlying franchise can grow without the crutch.
Second, prices went up and they are not coming back down. Nike took a mid-single-digit price increase on goods priced above $100 to $150 when tariffs were in force. Poonam Goyal, a senior U.S. e-commerce and retail analyst, put the dynamic plainly: "if prices went up, let's say 10%, are they going to come down 10%? That typically doesn't happen." Retailers do not voluntarily give back pricing power, and consumers who absorbed higher prices once are not guaranteed to return when prices stay high. The tariff created a one-way ratchet: costs rose, prices followed, and the refund lands in corporate cash flow rather than on the store shelf.
Third, supply chains have already moved, so the urgency has evaporated. Nike has been shifting production out of China and into Vietnam and other lower-cost countries since the first round of tariffs. With the legal overhang removed, the pressure to reconfigure accelerated sourcing is moderated - which is good for planning but removes one of the narrative catalysts that buoyed the stock in February. To fund that leaner model, Nike filed a WARN notice on Jan. 26, 2026, cutting 775 distribution-center jobs in Tennessee and Mississippi. The companies that investors assumed would get a fresh competitive edge from lower import costs are instead left with supply chains that already adapted, and a consumer who adapted by buying less.
Fourth, and most important, the replacement tariffs never really went away. On Feb. 21, 2026, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a global import surcharge that took effect Feb. 24 and was set to run for 150 days, expiring at 12:01 a.m. ET on July 24, 2026, unless Congress extended it. On May 7, the Court of International Trade ruled against that measure too, but the decision applied only to the three named plaintiffs, leaving the surcharge in effect for everyone else. Congress never extended it, and the clock ran out on schedule. Within an hour of the expiration, the administration implemented a new tariff regime under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, tied to forced-labor findings across dozens of trading partners. The "relief" many analysts priced in was, in practice, only partial and provisional - a five-month pause between one tariff architecture and the next.
The Cyclical Call: Relief Is a Sugar High, Not a Regime Change
This is the moment to make the cyclical-versus-structural call, because getting it wrong flips the entire investment thesis. The tariff refund is cyclical: a mean-reverting, one-off accounting benefit with no power to change a company's trajectory. The forces weighing on Nike and Starbucks are structural, or at least semi-structural: a global consumer under pressure, a China market that has stopped rewarding Western premium brands, and a pricing environment where the gains of inflation are sticky.
The evidence for the cyclical read is straightforward. Three historical parallels show the pattern. After the 2018-2019 tariff escalations, retailers that received duty drawbacks saw their margins pop for a quarter and then revert to the trend set by consumer demand. During the 2020 pandemic, one-time government support lifted earnings temporarily while revenue trajectories were determined by whether customers came back. And in Nike's own history, the company has absorbed cost shocks before - currency headwinds in 2015-2016, inventory gluts in 2022-2023 - and its stock only re-rated when top-line growth returned, not when costs fell.
The structural evidence is heavier. Nike's fiscal 2026 revenue was flat on a reported basis and down 2% currency-neutral - a full-year decline, not a blip. Nike CFO Matthew Friend told analysts in June: "Our consumer is under pressure around the world, and we can particularly see it having a larger impact on sportswear." That is not a tariff problem. That is a demand problem. Starbucks' China business, once the growth engine investors paid a premium for, is now a licensed joint venture generating royalty revenue rather than company-operated store growth. The structural shift in where and how these companies earn money happened while everyone was watching the tariff headlines.
The second-order implication is what most investors missed. The conventional wisdom says lower tariffs mean higher margins, and higher margins mean higher stock prices. The second-order reality is that a tariff refund that masks weak underlying earnings actually makes the earnings quality worse, not better. When 52 of Nike's 72 cents of quarterly EPS comes from a government refund, the reported number tells you less about the business, not more. Analysts cut price targets anyway. The market discounts earnings it cannot underwrite, and one-time refunds are the least underwritable kind.
There is also a cross-asset transmission channel worth noting. The ruling pushed the 10-year Treasury yield up to 4.097% in the days that followed, as investors priced a stronger growth impulse and, paradoxically, more fiscal uncertainty. Higher discount rates compress the multiples of long-duration consumer names precisely when those names need multiple expansion to recover. So the tariff win delivered a bond-market response that worked against the equity thesis - a small but telling example of how a single-policy event propagates through the system in ways a linear model does not capture.
The Strongest Counter-Thesis - and Why It Falls Short
The bull case is not frivolous, and it deserves a straight answer. Nike trades at roughly 18 times trailing earnings with a dividend yield above 4%, down about 76% from its all-time high. CEO Elliott Hill, who took over to lead the turnaround, has made "meaningful structural improvements," cut 775 distribution jobs, restructured Converse, and refocused the company on performance product. Starbucks, under Brian Niccol, has delivered four straight quarters of improving comparable sales and raised full-year guidance to $2.55-$2.65 in adjusted EPS with global comps near 6%. If the consumer stabilizes, both stocks are cheap on any historical measure, and the tariff refund is simply free money that accelerates the recovery.
LPL Research captured the skeptical side precisely: "We would fade the stock market bounce in tariff losers. We wouldn't chase any rebounds in import-heavy consumer retailers." The reason to side with LPL rather than the valuation hunters is that cheap is not a catalyst. A stock can be cheap for years if the earnings power that justified the old multiple no longer exists. Nike's earnings power has not been destroyed - fiscal 2026 net income of $3.11 billion is only 3% below the prior year - but its growth power has been impaired, and growth is what the market was paying for at $160 a share.
The specific signal that would prove the "fleeting relief" thesis wrong is concrete: Nike and Starbucks would need to post two consecutive quarters of organic revenue growth with tariff refunds fully phased out of earnings, while the Section 301 replacement duties are fully repealed rather than merely tied up in appeals. If that happens, the relief was not fleeting - it was merely delayed. If it does not, the market has already answered the question.
What to Watch Next
The forward picture splits cleanly by time horizon. In the short term, sentiment can still catch a bid from any further tariff developments - a negotiated trade deal, a larger-than-expected refund check, or a favorable legal ruling. Nike reports next earnings on Oct. 1, 2026, and Starbucks on Oct. 28 or 29; both will separate refund benefits from underlying performance more explicitly this time, and the market will reward that clarity.
Over the medium term, the decisive variable is the consumer, not the customs desk. Nike's guidance called for continued top-line headwinds through the first half of fiscal 2027. Starbucks is banking on its "Back to Starbucks" store experience campaign to keep North American traffic growing while China transitions to a licensing model. If U.S. comps hold near the raised guidance and China stabilizes under Boyu, the stocks can grind higher even without tariff help. If comps roll over, no refund will save them.
In the long run, the structural question is whether these brands can earn premium pricing in a world where premium pricing is exactly what the consumer is rejecting. The tariff episode was a stress test of brand power, and the early results are mixed. Nike's brand remains the strongest in sportswear, but its direct-to-consumer strategy is shrinking. Starbucks' brand remains the default coffee choice in America, but its growth market is now someone else's business.
Base case: tariff refunds provide a one-quarter earnings pop, then fade, and both stocks trade on underlying demand, which improves only gradually. Upside case: the consumer proves more resilient than expected, China licensing economics beat, and replacement duties are repealed - in which case today's prices look like a gift. Downside case: the refund masks a deeper demand problem, comps deteriorate into 2027, and the replacement tariffs stay in place through appeal - in which case the relief rally was the top.
The market spent seven months learning a lesson that every retailer already knows: a lower cost base does not create demand. For Nike and Starbucks, the tariff relief was real, the refund checks are real, and the stock market does not care - because what it is pricing now is not what these companies paid for their goods, but what their customers are still willing to pay.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
