On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a case that could upend the trade landscape not just for American businesses, but for global markets as well. At the heart of the dispute is the legality of former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs—a central pillar of his "America First" trade agenda that has both supporters and detractors on edge. The stakes are high: billions of dollars in customs revenue, the fate of countless small businesses, and, perhaps most fundamentally, the scope of presidential power itself.
Trump’s tariffs, first rolled out in April 2025, have been anything but ordinary. According to AFP, these duties target America’s largest trading partners, including Mexico, Canada, and China. The administration invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law typically reserved for national security crises, to justify imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on goods from nearly every country. The rationale behind the move? Trump declared that the U.S. trade deficit was an "extraordinary and unusual threat" to the nation, and earlier, he cited drug trafficking as an emergency to tax goods from China, Mexico, and Canada.
The tariffs were implemented in fits and starts over the summer of 2025, as Washington pushed other countries to strike new trade deals. The approach was aggressive, fast-moving, and, for many, unpredictable. As AFP reports, a lower court ruled in May that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing these duties. However, the tariffs remained in effect while the administration appealed. Then, in August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding in a 7-4 decision, declaring the levies illegal. Now, the Supreme Court’s final word could take months, but its impact will be felt for years.
For American businesses, the tariffs have been nothing short of disruptive. Victor Schwartz, founder of the New York wine company VOS Selections and a lead plaintiff in the case, described the situation bluntly: “These tariffs threaten the very existence of small businesses like mine, making it difficult to survive, let alone grow.” Schwartz told reporters, “Small firms are gambling with our livelihoods, trying to predict the unpredictable.” His frustration is echoed by other business owners who have seen costs skyrocket and uncertainty become the new normal.
Mike Gracie, who imports hand-painted wallpaper from China, told AFP that Trump’s steep tariffs resulted in "hundreds of thousands of dollars in new costs." He explained, "We didn’t want to risk our business by raising prices, but we can’t continue indefinitely to absorb them." The pain is widespread. Learning Resources, a U.S. toy seller, expects to pay $14 million in tariffs in 2025—seven times what it spent in 2024, according to CEO Rick Woldenberg. “They’ve thrown our business into unbelievable disruption,” Woldenberg said, noting that the company had to shift the manufacturing of hundreds of items since January.
Even businesses that aren’t directly consumer-facing have been hit hard. Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania pointed out that roughly 40% of U.S. imports are intermediate goods, not intended for retail consumers. He warned that maintaining tariffs means "U.S. businesses become less competitive in global markets." The ripple effects are being felt up and down supply chains, eroding margins and, in some cases, threatening survival.
Not surprisingly, some business owners are trying to brace for any outcome. Bill Harris, co-founder of Georgia-based Cooperative Coffees, said, “We are hopeful that this is going to be ruled illegal, but we’re also trying to prepare that it’s setting in.” His co-op, which imports coffee from more than a dozen countries, has already paid roughly $1.3 million in tariffs since April.
The legal arguments before the Supreme Court are as much about presidential authority as they are about trade. As AFP and BBC both note, the case could determine how far a president can go in imposing tariffs without congressional approval. The IEEPA, the law Trump used, was designed to give the president flexibility in emergencies. But critics argue that using it to address trade deficits stretches the definition of "emergency" beyond recognition.
Ryan Majerus, a former U.S. trade official and now a partner at King & Spalding, told AFP that the court could support or block Trump’s global tariffs or allow their imposition with certain limitations. He added that the ruling could differentiate between reciprocal tariffs and those imposed to crack down on fentanyl. Even if the Supreme Court finds the tariffs illegal, the administration could still impose 15% tariffs for 150 days under other laws, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act. Majerus pointed out that the administration might pursue investigations for more durable tariffs, keeping pressure on trading partners.
For Trump and his supporters, the issue is about more than just economic policy. Trump has described the fight in epic terms, warning that a loss would "tie his hands in trade negotiations and imperil national security." On Sunday, the president explained why he would not attend the hearing in person: “I wanted to go so badly… I just don’t want to do anything to deflect the importance of that decision. It’s not about me, it’s about our country.”
Legal analysts say it’s tough to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, especially with a conservative majority. If the court sides with Trump, it could give him—and future presidents—greater reach to impose tariffs or other economic measures with little oversight. As Smetters observed, "If the court really allows this to happen, then the question is, what else can the administration do without congressional approval?" He added that expanded executive power might "spook capital markets a bit more."
On the other hand, if the court declares the tariffs illegal, the government could be forced to refund some of the billions it has collected—an outcome that would delight many businesses but could also unsettle global trade partners. The ruling, however it falls, will not directly affect sector-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, according to AFP.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, the uncertainty is palpable. Businesses are left guessing about costs, supply chains, and the very rules of the game. Meanwhile, the broader question—just how much power should a president have over trade—remains as contentious and relevant as ever. The coming months will reveal not only the fate of Trump’s tariffs, but also the boundaries of executive authority in a rapidly shifting global economy.
