Businesses of all sizes and types face a constant set of challenges, juggling government regulation and taxes, litigation, market forces, supply chain issues, logistics complications, dealing with vendors and suppliers, and labor issues, not to mention sometimes-fleeting customer preferences.
But what if a cluster of those are intertwined? Currently, businesses across the U.S. are awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court related to the Trump administration’s tariffs. The court is faced with untangling a messy spaghetti bowl of issues, and a ruling expected in early 2026 could take out or add some ingredients that would make the ruling either tasty or unappetizing to those affected companies.“I think it’s the most important subject discussed by the Supreme Court in 100 years,” President Trump said in a recent interview aired on “60 Minutes.” He also said a ruling against his administration would leave the nation “immeasurably hurt” and “I think our economy will go to hell.”
Some legal experts say, however, that such a ruling would have little impact because the administration has several other options that would implement new tariffs almost immediately.
The court recently held oral arguments in a case focused on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which Congress used to grant any president broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of a national security emergency. The plaintiffs contend that IEEPA might authorize some tariffs but not the ones implemented by the Trump administration. The ruling could redefine presidential authority.
“[It’s] certainly one of the most exciting weeks in trade in my career. We don’t usually get Supreme Court arguments,” said Maggie Monday, an associate in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP during an ongoing weekly tariff briefing hosted by World Trade Center Utah.
Monday and colleague Chase Dunn spelled out issues in the case, including whether the president’s declaration of a threat under terms of IEEPA is valid for imposing tariffs — the act requires an “unusual or extraordinary threat” but some argue his reasons are either invalid or too broad, and whether Congress meant to give away its taxing power to a president. IEEPA has no mention of “tariffs” or “duties,” but only Congress, and not a president, has the authority to raise federal revenue.
Will the court rely on the plain text of the act, or the intent and legislative history when it was created?
It’s a relatively whirlwind matter. Tariffs were imposed earlier this year, they were challenged in May in the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the Supreme Court arguments were heard Nov. 5.
“They’ve been on an incredibly expedited timeline,” Monday said. “That is an incredibly quick timeline for a case that is very complicated and a case that’s not in the normal wheelhouse of the Supreme Court.”
The ruling, the attorneys said, could be just as messy as the case itself. Monday said the case involves complicated issues and could lead to a complicated ruling. “This quick timeline, I think, is interesting and I think it signals that not all the issues are going to get resolved, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules,” Monday said.
Unlike some matters before the majority-conservative Supreme Court, the outcome of this case is difficult to predict. The two attorneys said three justices are likely to find the president exceeded constitutional authority, three are likely to find that Congress gave the president authority to use IEEPA for tariff power, and three are swing votes.
Monday and Dunn listed four possible rulings. The first three would mean the U.S. Border and Customs Protection would possibly issue tariff refunds totaling more than $90 billion, although the refund process is unclear. Those three outcomes are that the act does not allow tariffs, that it allows tariffs but not the Trump tariffs, and that the act is unconstitutional.
The fourth possibility is a ruling that allows the tariffs and which would allow the CBP to continue to collect IEEPA duties. “It would maintain the status quo in terms of IEEPA duties, but, as you all know, the status quo is changing every day,” Monday said.
No matter the ruling, it won’t mean tariffs will instantly go away.
“The Trump administration has signaled that they have other tools in their back pocket … that they can pretty quickly pivot to,” she said. “Other statutes allow tariffs that the administration can pivot to tomorrow, if they need to. I don’t think tariffs are going anywhere. I don’t think the Trump administration would concede defeat with IEEPA and back off of their bigger policy agenda.”
Those options include the president using sections of existing law, but those would be “slower, more piecemeal” than what the administration prefers, Dunn said.
“These statutes give the president the authority to impose tariffs, but there’s a lot of procedural hurdles,” he said. “You can’t just impose tariffs on every country on the planet. Usually these are very narrow-focused on, like, steel and aluminum, or specific products or specific countries.”
Congress also could act, but Dunn said that is unlikely. “More likely, the Trump administration is going to look at prior existing statutes to maybe deal with whatever SCOTUS decision that they get,” he said.
So, what should an affected business do? The two attorneys suggested stakeholders maintain their documentation for potential tariff refunds, implement mitigation strategies, and/or explore options for advocacy and lobbying.
The full briefing is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6OXRAw1ltQ. WTCU also maintains a tariff dashboard at https://www.wtcutah.com/tariffs.