In a high-stakes legal showdown set to shape the future of U.S. trade policy, the Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments on November 5, 2025, that will determine the legality of sweeping tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump. The case, which has attracted national attention and drawn in a broad coalition of small businesses, legal scholars, and former officials, centers on the controversial use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in imports.
The White House’s tariff policies, first rolled out in April 2025, have been anything but static. According to Scripps News, the administration has repeatedly shifted and modified both the scope of the tariffs and the exemptions granted, creating a landscape of uncertainty for importers and exporters alike. These changes have only heightened anticipation for the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision, which could settle once and for all whether such executive actions are legal under U.S. law.
At the heart of the case are tariffs imposed in February and April 2025, including the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, which slapped levies of 10% to 50% on imports from countries such as Canada, Mexico, and China. Trump justified these tariffs by declaring national emergencies related to trade deficits and border crises, invoking the IEEPA as his legal authority. However, as Bloomberg reported, small businesses and several states have challenged the president’s authority, arguing that these measures amount to an unauthorized $3 trillion tax on American businesses over the next decade.
“In the months since, he has raised and lowered, paused and resumed, and threatened and unthreatened tariffs at will, for a grab bag of reasons. By the government’s own account, those actions amount to an over $3 trillion tax increase on Americans over the next decade,” stated Learning Resources Inc., one of the companies challenging the tariffs, in a recent Supreme Court brief.
The legal battle has its roots in a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision from August 2025, which ruled that the Trump administration’s tariff measures based on IEEPA were illegal. The appellate court found that the sweeping reciprocal tariffs imposed under the act exceeded the authority granted to the president, a view echoed by many of the policy’s critics. The Supreme Court’s review will focus squarely on whether Trump’s actions were within the bounds of the 1977 law, which was designed to give the president financial tools during national security, foreign policy, or economic emergencies—but not, critics say, to unilaterally reshape trade policy.
The case has galvanized a diverse array of stakeholders. Foremost among them is a new coalition called We Pay the Tariffs, which is filing an amicus brief on behalf of small businesses. According to Daniel Anthony, the group’s executive director, We Pay the Tariffs has been working tirelessly to rally support, inviting small businesses to sign on as supporters in the amicus brief’s appendix until the deadline of 11:59 p.m. ET on October 21. The coalition’s open letter to Congress, which opposes the new tariffs, has already attracted nearly 700 signers as of October 20 and features an impact map with state-specific tariff cost data. Last month, We Pay the Tariffs hosted a lobby day that included 150 meetings with House and Senate offices, underlining the sense of urgency felt by many in the small business community.
“The government contends that the president may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants—simply by declaring longstanding US trade deficits a national emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that,” argued a separate brief filed by wine distributor V.O.S. Selections Inc.
Adding further weight to the opposition, a group of prominent Republican diplomatic and security figures, along with former jurists, submitted their own amicus brief on October 17. According to Mail Business, the signatories include Philip Zelico, former State Department adviser; Robert Zoellick, former World Bank President; and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, among others. Their brief dismisses the notion that the president has independent authority to adjust tariffs as a matter of foreign policy discretion. They specifically criticize the Trump administration’s reliance on drug trafficking and trade imbalances as grounds for a national emergency, arguing that “the so-called ‘threat’ that triggered tariffs consists of a wide range of economic trends and complaints that have existed since the 1970s, and factors that have evolved over the years.” They add, “This long-term problem is not unusual in the sense of a sudden departure from the status quo, no matter how serious it is, and it is certainly not unusual in the sense of a sudden crisis.” Instead, they emphasize, “On the contrary, these issues are ordinary and everyday challenges that are subject to legislative and policy debates.”
The White House, for its part, has declined to comment publicly on the ongoing litigation. Administration officials have downplayed the tariffs’ impact, noting that some were imposed under other legal statutes—such as those governing steel, aluminum, and automobiles—which are not affected by the current appeal.
Meanwhile, a coalition of Democratic-led states has also filed challenges against the tariffs, broadening the case’s political dimensions. Observers have noted the Supreme Court’s unusually aggressive schedule for hearing arguments, suggesting a desire for a swift resolution given the policy’s far-reaching economic consequences.
At stake is not just the fate of the Trump-era tariffs, but the very balance of power between Congress and the presidency when it comes to trade policy. The IEEPA was never intended, critics say, to serve as a blank check for imposing tariffs. Instead, Congress has traditionally held the authority to levy taxes and duties—a principle that many see as central to the nation’s constitutional framework.
For small businesses, the stakes are particularly high. Many argue that the tariffs have disrupted supply chains, increased costs, and created an unpredictable business environment. As one small business advocate put it, “We need certainty and fairness in our trade policies, not sudden changes that upend our planning and threaten our livelihoods.”
As the November 5 hearing approaches, all eyes are on the Supreme Court. The ruling could upend years of tariff policy, redefine the limits of presidential power, and send ripple effects through the global economy. It’s a moment of reckoning for American trade—and for the constitutional order itself.
