Big companies are sitting out the Supreme Court tariff fight, leaving small firms and trade groups to front the high-stakes challenge to President Donald Trump’s sweeping import duties. The justices heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case that tests whether an emergency-economic powers law lets a president levy broad tariffs without Congress.
The consolidated cases before the Court target tariffs Trump imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Lower courts have found those tariffs exceeded presidential authority, but left them in place pending review. On Wednesday, the justices pressed lawyers on whether a statute meant for emergencies truly authorizes duties that function like taxes—traditionally Congress’s domain. Trump ultimately declined to attend the hearing; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he would be in the courtroom, underscoring the policy’s stakes for the administration.
Not the country’s largest corporations. Reuters reported that major U.S. companies neither filed their own lawsuits nor submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. The Washington Post likewise noted that no major companies filed briefs supporting the challenge, even as many quietly sought exemptions or lobbied behind the scenes. Instead, the face of the litigation is small and midsize importers—led by educational toymaker Learning Resources and wine distributor V.O.S. Selections—along with states and industry groups. Reuters added that hundreds of smaller firms joined an amicus brief organized by an advocacy coalition.
The outcome will shape the reach of presidential power over trade—and corporate balance sheets. Opponents say allowing tariffs via IEEPA would grant the White House a backdoor taxing authority. The Post reported that importers have paid roughly $90 billion under the emergency-tariff program to date. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce backed the challengers, signaling a divide between business’s public posture and its private misgivings about cost, predictability, and precedent.
A ruling in the months ahead could force refunds, narrow the scope of emergency powers, or affirm the administration’s approach. Even if the IEEPA path is curbed, officials have hinted at fallback options through other trade laws and existing agreements. For now, large companies are betting quiet lobbying beats public litigation, while smaller importers—bearing more immediate pain—are asking the Court to draw a firmer line between emergency regulation and taxing authority.