The United States Supreme Court has concluded its current term with the usual flurry of rulings. This year, SCOTUS heard arguments in disputes ranging from gun rights to birthright citizenship, and, as usual, there’s been no shortage of controversy.
However, the Court also issued decisions that can ultimately affect the financial bottom lines of everyday people across the country. These rulings, which involve property rights, the independence of monetary policy, and tariff authority, alter key rules for investors, consumers, and homeowners.
Additionally, a separate tax case that the High Court declined to review leaves heightened IRS audit risk in place for some taxpayers…
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more – straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice – straight to your e-mail.
Curious? Here’s more of what you need to know about what some of the latest SCOTUS cases mean for your finances.
U.S. Supreme Court opinions for 2026
The following decisions have potential economic implications and arise during a time when many people are experiencing financial uncertainty due to inflation and the rising costs of housing, food, and gas.
These are not the only decisions from the Court this term that could affect your finances.
#1. Local governments don’t have to pay fair market value for foreclosed homes
In Pung v. Isabella County, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a municipality forecloses on a property for unpaid taxes, “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is measured by the actual auction price — not fair market value.
What happened in the case?
A homeowner, Michael Pung, fell behind on roughly $2,200 in property taxes on his home in Isabella County, Michigan. The county foreclosed and sold the home at public auction for $76,008, despite an assessed market value of approximately $194,400.
Pung argued that keeping the difference between the tax debt and the home’s fair market value amounted to an unconstitutional taking of equity. So the dispute centered on how to measure any surplus equity owed to a property owner after a tax foreclosure.
Pung said that compensation should be based on the home’s market value, while the county maintained that any surplus should be measured using the amount actually realized at auction.
In a 9-0 ruling issued on June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed with the county, holding that surplus equity from a tax foreclosure is measured by the amount realized at a lawful public auction, not by an estimate of the property’s market value.
How this may affect your home
Tax foreclosure risk isn’t just about losing a home. It can also mean losing equity.
What this means in practice:
- Property tax debt can put your home and your home equity at risk, even if the amount owed is relatively small.
- If a home is sold at tax foreclosure, you might not get back the difference between what it’s worth and what it sells for.
- Setting up a payment plan or resolving delinquent taxes before foreclosure may help.
#2. Presidential authority is limited when it comes to imposing broad tariffs
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the executive branch to impose broad tariffs.
What happened in the case?
As Kiplinger has reported, in 2025, President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from a wide range of countries, with some duties reaching 25%–60% on certain goods. The administration invoked emergency declarations under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the measures, arguing that the statute authorized broad action to address national economic and security concerns.
Importers challenged the tariffs, arguing that the executive branch exceeded its statutory authority. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit, ruled that IEEPA does not grant tariff-setting power.
The Supreme Court affirmed those courts in a 6-3 decision on February 20, 2026, holding that tariff authority remains a core congressional power tied to taxation and revenue.
How this could impact your finances
Tariffs function as embedded costs within everyday goods and supply chains.
What this could mean in terms of potential benefits:
- Fewer surprise tariffs or sudden consumer cost spikes due to emergency executive tariff declarations
- More predictable pricing for import-heavy goods
- Tariff refunds for some importers
#3. There may be limits on removal power when it comes to the Federal Reserve
In Trump v. Cook, the U.S. Supreme Court held that statutory “for-cause” protections limit the executive branch’s ability to remove Federal Reserve governors.
What happened in the case?
The Trump administration attempted to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over alleged discrepancies in financial disclosures, a move seen as part of an effort to assert greater control over the Fed.
Lower courts blocked the removal, and the Supreme Court affirmed in a 5-4 ruling on June 29, 2026, holding that Congress may limit removal authority to protect the Federal Reserve’s independence.
How this could affect your finances
Federal Reserve independence is central to how interest rates and credit conditions are set.
- An independent Fed can fight inflation even when it’s politically unpopular to do so.
- That helps keep inflation expectations more stable over time, which supports steadier borrowing costs and economic planning.
Note: This case was part of a broader, sweeping decision (consolidated with a case involving the FTC) where the 6-3 conservative court majority expanded presidential power. The Court overturned decades of precedent (known as Humphrey’s Executor) to rule that a President can fire the heads of most other independent regulatory agencies at will. The Fed was essentially treated in the Cook case as the exception.
Honorable Mention: IRS audit risk can be indefinite for fraudulent returns
In Murrin v. Commissioner, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an interesting Third Circuit federal court ruling. That leaves in place a decision allowing the IRS to assess taxes beyond the standard statute of limitations when a tax return contains fraud, even if the taxpayer was unaware of the fraud.
What happened in the case?
A taxpayer, Stephanie Murrin, received a notice of deficiency nearly 20 years after filing her federal income tax returns. (The IRS determined that her tax preparer had inserted fraudulent items that significantly understated her tax liability.)
The court found that she acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the preparer’s misconduct. Still, a $65,318 tax deficiency ultimately grew to more than $328,000 once the IRS applied interest and penalties.
The central dispute was whether the normal three-year statute of limitations barred the IRS from assessing additional tax when fraud was present, even if the taxpayer wasn’t personally aware of it.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that Internal Revenue Code Section 6501(c)(1) applies to the return itself — meaning fraud on the return removes the standard three-year limitation period regardless of the taxpayer’s intent or knowledge.
Note: This ruling applies in jurisdictions under the Third Circuit, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
How this might impact your taxes
In Third Circuit states and territories, fraud on a tax return can potentially eliminate the normal IRS audit deadline.
What this means for some taxpayers:
- In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, fraud-related returns may remain open indefinitely.
- Taxpayers remain responsible for accuracy even when using paid preparers.
- Long-delayed IRS assessments could accumulate significant interest and penalties.
- Strong tax recordkeeping and preparer oversight become more important.
Supreme Court decisions: Bottom line
(Image credit: joe daniel price/Getty Images)
Supreme Court decisions about money and property often don’t drastically change financial conditions right away, but they set the rules for how taxes are enforced, how agencies are regulated, and where power sits in the financial system.
Over time, those rulings shape how predictable things feel for “regular people” and the balance of authority between Congress and the executive branch.
So, as always, stay tuned as the effects of these and other rulings ripple through everyday life in the months and years ahead.
