But a ruling from the high court against Mr. Trump, who appointed three of the justices, could also have significant implications for presidential power.
In the dispute over Mr. Trump’s tariffs, the Supreme Court will weigh the legal merits of the case, something it has not yet done in the others.
That case is not before the Supreme Court.
Upon hearing Mr. Trump would be imposing his sweeping levies, one of Robbins’ first moves was to search for domestic suppliers.
In the meantime, Johnson said the company continues to design and develop new games, but is waiting to hear from the Supreme Court before moving forward with manufacturing.
Washington — Lindsay Hagerman describes the last few months as turbulent.
Hagerman, a co-owner of RainCaper, a Pennsylvania-based company that sells art-inspired gifts and travel accessories, has found herself doubting her pricing strategy as tariffs on Chinese imports have fluctuated between 10% and 20%, then back to 145%.
Hagerman said to CBS News, “Is it temporary? Is this the new normal? You’re struggling with how do we price – do we change prices now? Wait? I don’t want to gouge people.”. “That’s not a good way to conduct business. However, I also have expenses to pay. The “.
Almost ten years ago, Hagerman and her mother founded RainCaper, a company that sells rain capes, travel accessories, umbrellas, scarves, shawls, and drinkware to retailers, boutiques, museums, and individual customers via its website.
Her business imports rain capes and umbrellas made of waterproof fabric from China since neither can be produced in the United States. In S. said Hagerman. Because of this, RainCaper is now at the forefront of President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade war.
However, Hagerman and entrepreneurs in the U.S. The S. could see some stability in the upcoming weeks, as the Supreme Court is scheduled to decide on Wednesday whether Mr. Trump can use a federal emergency powers law to unilaterally impose tariffs on almost all nations.
The president’s attempts to use tariffs as leverage in negotiations with foreign nations and to put pressure on the United States could be severely damaged if the Supreme Court upholds lower courts’ rulings that his most expansive duties are unlawful. In S. businesses to make investments in domestic production. However, a decision against Mr. Trump, who nominated three of the justices, might also have a big impact on presidential authority.
Many small businesses have had to invest time and resources in keeping up with the rapidly shifting tariff rates and countries targeted since he announced the broad global tariffs earlier this year, all the while deciding how to react to the higher costs of importing the components required for their products.
Two of RainCaper’s seven employees who worked in operations and customer service were let go, according to Hagerman, who also reduced spending.
Because of the levies, she also looked into manufacturing outside of China, but Hagerman ultimately decided against it due in part to the substantial investment required. Additionally, she stated that it was not feasible for her to travel to nations like Bangladesh and Cambodia to view other possible facilities because she is a military spouse whose husband is out of state.
“It’s just not true that we’re bringing trillions into the economy and that Brazil and China are paying these tariffs,” Hagerman stated. “The importer is responsible for paying tariffs. I’m in charge of imports. A “.
The Supreme Court was given a “stark choice.”.
Hey, Mr. Through a series of executive orders, Trump has imposed two sets of tariffs using a federal statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. On almost all U, the first set a baseline rate of 10%. For S. trading partner, in addition to higher reciprocal tariffs on over 50 nations; the second imposed tariffs at different rates on China, Canada, and Mexico.
The president announced trade deficits and the influx of illegal drugs, including fentanyl, in his executive orders. In S. as national emergencies, which made IEEPA’s authority available. The law gives the president the authority to “regulate…” importation in order to address “any unusual and extraordinary threat” to foreign policy, national security, or the United States. The S. He claimed that trade disparities and drug trafficking make up the economy.
The administration has reached trade agreements with ten countries and the European Union since Mr. Trump announced the tariffs in February and April on what he called “Liberation Day.” He also stated that it is “actively negotiating” with additional foreign countries.
However, a group of twelve states and two groups of small businesses filed lawsuits shortly after the president announced the tariffs, claiming that IEEPA does not permit the sweeping duties. Because IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to unilaterally impose the global and trafficking tariffs, lower courts have ruled against the administration.
In one instance, five small companies and Democratic representatives from twelve states were involved. The S. A 7-4 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declared that many of the president’s levies were unlawful. However, the Federal Circuit overturned an injunction from a lower court, allowing the Trump administration to continue collecting the international and trafficking tariffs for the time being.
You, Mr. Additionally, Trump has continued to rely on IEEPA to impose new levies or modify existing rates. For example, he raised Canadian tariffs to 35 percent, despite the fact that many of its goods are exempt, imposed an additional 40 percent duty on Brazil, and threatened to impose an additional 100 percent duty on China, though the president has since backtracked. Following a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, Mr. Trump declared that he would lower the tariffs on goods imported from China.
Congress has long granted the president broad authority to impose tariffs in order to address emergencies, according to the Trump administration, which is pleading with the Supreme Court to uphold the levies. In a filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated that because IEEPA grants the president the authority to “regulate… importation,” it is a continuation of that tradition. A “.
Additionally, Sauer claimed that the tariffs are an exercise of Mr. Trump’s authority over foreign policy and national security and that courts ought to respect his judgment that the duties are the most appropriate way to handle national emergencies brought on by drug trafficking and trade deficits.
He claimed that there would be “catastrophic consequences” for foreign policy, the economy, and national security if those levies were declared invalid.
Sauer wrote, “To the President, these cases present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation.”.
Mr. Trump declared that he intended to attend the arguments in person and referred to the case as “one of the most important in the history of the country.”. On Sunday, however, he changed his mind, stating on social media that he “did not want to distract from the importance of this decision.”. The “.
The small businesses’ attorneys informed the high court in documents that Mr. Trump’s tariffs have serious economic repercussions. According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the duties will result in $1.7 trillion in new taxes for Americans by 2035, a 0.7 percent annual reduction in GDP growth, and a 1.1 percent decrease in income in 2026.
Up until now, no president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs, and neither that word nor any similar ones are mentioned in the legislation. In filings, Neal Katyal, who will represent small businesses before the Supreme Court, cautioned that the Trump administration’s interpretation of IEEPA is a “breathtaking assertion” of power that needs Congress’s express approval.
If the Supreme Court concurs with Mr. Trump that the phrase “regulate…” importation in IEEPA grants the president the authority to tax, then “the president, empowered by a supercharged U.S. For S. In a filing, Katyal stated, “Code, could tax everything from cars to zoos.”.
According to Timothy Meyer, an expert in international law at Duke Law, “the government’s theory is really that the president has the ability to impose sales taxes, property taxes, use taxes, essentially a wealth tax under IEEPA,” he told CBS News. “The justices will have to deal with this incredibly wide range of the government’s argument. A “.
Additionally, the plaintiffs contended that trade deficits hardly represent a “unusual and extraordinary threat,” given that imbalances have persisted for fifty years and that Mr. Trump has called them “persistent.”. The “.
Furthermore, Congress alone has the authority to impose taxes and duties, and any delegations of that authority have been “explicit and strictly limited,” they stated. Indeed, Congress has delegated its tariffing authority through a number of other statutes, some of which Mr. Trump has utilized, but they place restrictions on the president.
“The reason President Trump likes IEEPA is that, in contrast to every other statute that gives the president the power to impose tariffs, IEEPA requires no investigation or fact-finding other than an unreviewable declaration of a national emergency, and it places no limits on what the president can do in terms of the amount of the duty or the length of time that they can remain in place,” Meyer explained.
“It doesn’t do any of those things because it doesn’t mention duties at all, so it seems pretty likely that Congress did not intend to include substantial power to impose tariffs in the statute,” he continued. A “.
If Mr. Trump wins before the Supreme Court, future administrations will probably use IEEPA’s authority to set out broad tariffs rather than look to other authorities that are more narrow and impose specific requirements, according to Jeffrey Bialos, a partner at Eversheds Sutherland who specializes in international law.
“Foreign affairs are not at issue here. It’s a matter of what authority you require and what can be delegated under Article I Section 8, according to Bialos. “The significance of what was done here is whether Congress intended to permit the president to repeal the entire US tariff code. The “.
A presidential authority test.
Hey, Mr. During his first few months back in office, Trump has exercised his presidential power in a number of ways, such as by firing members of the executive branch and withholding $4 billion in congressionally authorized foreign aid.
In the majority of cases that reached the Supreme Court in their early stages, the conservative justices permitted the Trump administration to temporarily impose specific policies while lower court proceedings were ongoing.
The Supreme Court will consider the case’s legal merits in the tariff dispute involving Mr. Trump, something it hasn’t done in the previous cases. However, like those other legal disputes, this one may have an impact on the president’s intended authority.
Meyer stated, “What the Supreme Court is really deciding here is whether or not to give the administration a free pass anytime it’s able to connect some sort of policy initiative to some sort of international dimension.”. “The administration will use its emergency and international affairs powers to the fullest extent possible if you set up a system where you get deference if you can classify something as a foreign affairs issue, but there is no deference if it’s done by an administrative agency pursuing some sort of statutory delegation. The “.
Using what is known as the major questions doctrine to invalidate former President Joe Biden’s plan to erase more than $400 billion in student loan debt and prevent an eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court has been skeptical of broad assertions of executive authority on matters of major political and economic significance when Congress has not spoken clearly.
In the dispute over his tariffs, this legal principle is brought up, but the Trump administration contends that it does not apply to issues of foreign policy and national security. However, attorneys representing small businesses argue that tariffs are a tax on the American people and that Congress has the authority to impose taxes under the Constitution.
“Taxing American citizens is not foreign policy or national security, and Emily Ley and other regular Americans pay the tariffs,” stated Mark Chenoweth, chief legal officer and president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The group is opposing Mr. Trump’s tariffs on behalf of a stationary company in Pensacola and its CEO, Emily Ley. The Supreme Court is not currently considering that case.
Chenoweth stated, “It is incorrect to argue that unilateral taxation of American citizens is foreign policy or national security.”. “If the president is able to unilaterally increase taxes on American citizens, that would be taxation without representation, which is what we fought a Revolutionary War over.”. A “.
the “mass extinction” of small companies.
As the Supreme Court considers the cases, the government has continued to collect the duties even though lower courts have ruled that Mr. Trump’s global and trafficking tariffs are unlawful.
This has required Julie Robbins, CEO of EarthQuaker Devices, to pay levies totaling almost $40,000 through the end of October.
The family-run business manufactures guitar pedals in Akron, Ohio. The 50 pedals in EarthQuaker’s product line require over 900 distinct parts, which are sourced from 15 different nations, including Mexico, Portugal, Poland, Ukraine, and several Asian nations.
Robbins stated that EarthQuaker sources the mechanical and electrical parts required for its pedals from wholesalers who screen foreign producers in order to help with logistics. When the goods arrive in the United States, the wholesalers pay the tariffs. In S. ports and then transfer some of the responsibilities to EarthQuaker, she said.
Robbins looked for domestic suppliers as soon as he learned that Mr. Trump would be enforcing his sweeping levies. In the end, she discovered that they either don’t have the parts for EarthQuaker’s guitar pedals or charge much more than her foreign suppliers.
She added that since there were no assurances that other manufacturers or their goods would be dependable, severing long-standing ties with foreign suppliers would be dangerous and upset a supply chain that took years to perfect.
“This supply chain has taken us 20 years to develop,” she stated. “It’s not something that happened overnight, so I don’t see it happening again. A “.
Robbins stated that instead of having the parts shipped to the United States, EarthQuaker could save money by having their pedals manufactured entirely abroad. To S. and the pedals that were put together at its Ohio production facilities. However, maintaining well-paying jobs in Akron—once dubbed the “Rubber Capital of the World” due to its production of rubber goods—would be at odds with the company’s ideals.
“We are manufacturing in the United States, but you can’t make the raw materials in the United States, despite people’s attempts to oversimplify and say that you should be manufacturing in the United States. For S. According to Robbins.
According to her, EarthQuaker lacks wealthy investors and has depleted its cash reserves while navigating the whiplash of fluctuating tariff rates. Additionally, the company pulled two open positions and decided not to replace departing employees in recent months.
“My worry is that small businesses will simply go extinct,” Robbins stated. “It can’t be sustained. A “.
Price Johnson, the chief operating officer of Cephalofair Games, a California-based company that creates and publishes board games, claims that the company has paid more than $144,000 in new tariffs in recent months.
Due to the import taxes, Cephalofair told its customers in July that it would be imposing “tariff surcharges” and raising the cost of its goods. Additionally, it has lowered staff and furloughed workers’ salaries.
In reaction to the tariffs, the company, which makes its games in China, has had to modify product runs. Johnson told CBS News that a 7,000-unit run is almost finished, but it will not be shipped to the United States. To S. Rather, the company will ship its games to Australia, the UK, and Europe.
Johnson stated that while the company is still working on new game designs and development, it will not begin production until it has heard from the Supreme Court.
According to Johnson, Cephalofair was not affected by tariffs during the first administration and had been getting ready for 10–15% tariffs on Chinese imports. However, he and his colleagues now keep an eye on Mr. Trump’s social media feed for announcements pertaining to tariffs.
According to Johnson, the uncertainty has “removed any ability for us to plan or rely on what we as importers can operate on.”. “We have to plan on not being able to plan or trust what U. In S. Trade-related policy is involved. The “.
