Corporate America is largely sitting out Trump-tariff Supreme Court fight, leaving small importers and a handful of policy groups to carry a case that could redefine presidential power over trade and who pays when tariffs act like taxes. The unusual silence from many household names underscores both the political sensitivities and the high stakes as the justices weigh the legality of sweeping duties imposed under emergency powers.
Oral arguments are scheduled for November 5, 2025, in a challenge to President Donald Trump’s reliance on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy broad import taxes. The Court took the dispute on an accelerated timetable after lower courts held that IEEPA does not grant a president open-ended authority to set tariffs without Congress. Oral arguments are set for November 5, 2025. (abcnews.go.com)
In late August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7–4 decision, found most of the tariffs unlawful, prompting the administration to seek swift Supreme Court review. Separately, the justices earlier declined an emergency bid to fast-track a related toy-makers’ challenge, signaling the case would follow a normal path before the high court agreed to hear it this fall. Lower courts ruled Trump exceeded IEEPA authority. (washingtonpost.com)
Trump said on November 2 that he would not attend the arguments to avoid creating a distraction, while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent plans to be present — a sign of how central the outcome is to the administration’s economic agenda. (reuters.com)
Despite the implications for supply chains and pricing, No major companies filed briefs backing the challenge, according to court filings reviewed by The Washington Post. Instead, many corporations focused on private lobbying and case-by-case exemptions, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several right-leaning or libertarian groups weighed in against the tariffs. The suits themselves are led by smaller firms, including New York-based wine importer V.O.S. Selections and Illinois toymaker Learning Resources. (washingtonpost.com)
The funding behind the opposition also reflects a rift on the right: libertarian-leaning donors and advocacy outfits helped underwrite briefs urging the justices to rein in executive authority, even as America First-aligned groups back the White House. (washingtonpost.com)
The ruling will shape how far presidents can go in wielding emergency powers over the economy — and whether Congress must explicitly authorize tariffs that function as taxes. If the administration loses, the government could face pressure to refund a portion of the billions collected under the emergency measures, while a win could cement a more expansive tariff tool for foreign policy and trade leverage. (washingtonpost.com)
Beyond constitutional boundaries, consumers and small businesses are watching prices: importers, not foreign countries, pay tariffs at the dock, with some costs passed along on store shelves. The Court’s decision will either restore Congress’s primacy on tariff policy or validate the White House’s claim that sudden, sweeping duties are a necessary diplomatic instrument. (washingtonpost.com)