In a significant ruling that has sent ripples through the American business landscape, the Supreme Court struck down many of the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, offering a measure of relief to small businesses battered by higher costs and economic uncertainty. The decision, handed down on Friday, invalidated the use of national emergency powers to enact broad trade levies, which had generated more than $130 billion in revenue—essentially a tax borne by U.S. companies and consumers. While business owners across the country expressed cautious optimism, the administration has signaled it may pivot to other legal avenues to maintain protective measures, leaving the future of trade policy in flux.
The tariffs, unveiled last April in what Trump dubbed “Liberation Day,” dramatically increased duties on imports from key trading partners, with some rates more than doubling overnight. This abrupt policy shift strained international relationships and injected chaos into supply chains, according to critics. “The administration framed these tariffs as strength,” said Richard Trent, executive director of the Main Street Alliance, an organization representing over 30,000 U.S. small businesses, in a statement to NBC News. “What our members experienced was chaos. Rates jumping overnight. No phase in. No planning horizon.”
For companies like Deer Stags Concepts, a New York-based shoe manufacturer, the impact was immediate and severe. Rick Muskat, the company's president, described how the tariffs led to substantial burdens, including layoffs and the suspension of all growth initiatives. “The burden on our business has been substantial—leading to layoffs and halting all growth plans,” Muskat told reporters. Similarly, Andrea Englisis, president of Athenee Importers & Distributors in New York, revealed that tariff payments diverted funds originally earmarked for employee salaries. She added that if tariffs were not reimposed, she would consider filling two open positions at her firm.
Despite the court's intervention, the path forward remains murky. The Trump administration, undeterred, has indicated it could reinstate tariffs using alternative trade laws. On Friday, Trump announced plans for a 10% global tariff under a different authority, a move that underscores the ruling's limited scope. Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the libertarian Cato Institute, noted in a phone interview prior to the decision that such shifts are likely. “Nobody really expects tariffs to go away because of this decision,” Lincicome said. “They’re just going to get replaced with other tariffs.” He further cautioned that the economic fallout from the original levies might not be easily undone, describing the ruling as far from a “silver bullet.”
One pressing question left unanswered by the Supreme Court is the handling of refunds for the billions collected. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his dissent, highlighted the fiscal challenges ahead, writing, “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking on NBC's “Meet the Press” on Sept. 7, estimated that a loss in the case would compel the government to refund about half of the tariff revenue. For struggling businesses, such reimbursements could provide vital breathing room.
Sarah Wells, CEO and founder of Sarah Wells Bags in Virginia, emphasized that quick refunds would prioritize rehiring American workers. “If tariff refunds were returned quickly, our first priority would be rehiring American workers,” she said. Melkon Khosrovian, co-founder of Greenbar Distillery in California, echoed this hope, stating that refunds would enable him to resume hiring and instill greater confidence in his operations. Patrice Gerber, owner of the California-based home decor firm Kouboo, indicated she would reverse price hikes imposed due to the tariffs—but only if refunds materialize and no new duties supplant them.
Yet, not all business leaders believe refunds alone can mend the damage. Tom Wetzel, owner of Red Raven Games, a board game publisher in Utah, pointed to lingering consumer hesitancy amid broader economic pressures. “Many U.S. consumers feel uncertain about their finances and consequently they are not buying as much, especially for discretionary expenses,” Wetzel said. He elaborated on the irreversible harm: “When I say the damage cannot be refunded, I mean that our market has taken significant losses due to our customers’ job loss and inflation, and these issues would not be cured by a tariff refund.”
“I had to raise my prices, but I just feel like with me raising them, it made customers not want to shop with me because my target demographic is Black audiences, Black women, who are being affected by layoffs, so that could contribute to it as well,” said Domonique Brown, the 32-year-old owner of Domoink, a home decor, apparel, and accessory brand in Pomona, California.
The economy's uneven recovery amplifies these concerns. Although overall inflation has moderated, persistent high costs in essentials like food and shelter continue to weigh on households. Recent job growth has been uneven, largely confined to sectors such as elder care and construction, fostering a fragile consumer environment that small businesses must navigate.
The agriculture sector, particularly hard-hit by retaliatory tariffs from countries like China, also hailed the decision with tempered enthusiasm. The National Farmers Union, in a statement, appreciated the clarity on tariff authority but warned of ongoing repercussions. “We appreciate the Court providing clarity on tariff authority. However, many family farmers and ranchers have already felt the consequences of this tariff agenda,” the group said. It urged the administration to avoid similar measures under other pretexts and called on Congress to oversee trade policies that bolster rather than hinder family operations.
John Boyd Jr., president and founder of the National Black Farmers Association, was more jubilant about the ruling's implications for his 1,600-acre farm in Virginia. “I got a big win,” Boyd told NBC News over the phone. “The Supreme Court is still the law of the land. And I think they got this one right.” He detailed how the tariffs inflated costs for essentials like fertilizer, diesel, and machinery parts, while disrupting exports of commodities such as corn, wheat, and soybeans. “We lost all of our export buyers in this country,” Boyd said, estimating industry-wide losses at nearly $57 billion—far exceeding the $12 billion “bridge payment” the administration provided to farmers in December.
That December aid package, announced as a one-time measure, was framed by the Trump administration as a response to “temporary trade market disruptions and increased production costs,” which it attributed to “disastrous” policies from the prior Biden era, including record-high input prices and a lack of new trade deals. Boyd, however, stressed that refunds, if issued, would help settle outstanding bills on his farm. Still, he acknowledged the decision's limitations: “This is a wake-up call to this president that you can’t run this country like the Wild, Wild West. The damage has been done, but we still got to go forward in this country.”
As businesses and farmers assess the ruling's immediate effects, the broader implications for U.S. trade policy loom large. The decision curtails the executive branch's unilateral use of emergency powers for tariffs, potentially setting a precedent for congressional involvement in future trade disputes. Yet, with the administration exploring workarounds, small enterprises remain on edge, balancing hopes for refunds against fears of renewed levies.
Experts like Lincicome suggest the economic ripple effects could be more contained than anticipated, but the human cost—lost jobs, stalled expansions, and eroded consumer trust—underscores the ruling's real-world stakes. For now, the Supreme Court's action provides a momentary reprieve, but the tariff saga appears far from over, with small businesses bracing for whatever trade battles lie ahead.