As a result of President Donald Trump’s ongoing emergency tariffs, small businesses throughout Alexandria are facing immense financial uncertainty. However, on Friday, Feb. 20, the Supreme Court struck down these tariffs, giving businesses optimism for financial relief.
In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled that Trump exceeded his presidential power when invoking these tariffs, violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
On April 2, 2025, Trump declared a national emergency to address the large trade deficit caused by the lack of reciprocity in trade relationships and other harmful foreign policies. A non-reciprocal trade deficit is when a country imports significantly more from a trading partner than in exports, causing an imbalance in trade. To deal with this threat, Trump ordered a series of tariffs on targeted foreign products, including an initial 10% tariff on imports from all countries.
“April 2 is a liberating day for our country,” Trump said to news reporters on Air Force One on March 15. “We’re getting back to some of the wealth that very, very foolish presidents gave away because they had no clue what they were doing.”
Trump claimed he had the authority to issue these tariffs by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act gives the president broad powers to deal with any extraordinary threat to security, foreign policy, or the economy, if the president declares a national emergency for such a threat.
Tariffs are taxes on goods and services imported from other countries that governments impose to protect domestic industry and to collect revenue. However, when foreign businesses face these import taxes, they increase the pricing of their goods and services to offset the expense, causing businesses and consumers to face higher costs.
This increase in prices on imported goods and services has put severe stress on American businesses, including Alexandria’s own small businesses. Specifically, these tariffs hit hardest on businesses who rely on imported automobile parts, electronics, and other consumer goods such as clothing and toys.
Made in ALK, a small business in Old Town, sells art and handmade products crafted by local artists. The owner, Beth Lawton, has not experienced a direct effect from the tariffs. However, the artists she has been working with have.
“Our artists have been [impacted by the tariffs] based on the imported raw materials that they’re using. For example, all of our candles are made from soy wax, and soy wax has been a part of the tariff situaion. Some of their packaging comes from foreign sources too,” Lawton said.
China is one of the top suppliers of soy wax, and Trump has raised tariffs on China’s exports by extremely high levels, specifically by 145%.
“Many makers have said that they were going to stock up supplies while things were less expensive to avoid some of the tariffs and the introduced uncertainty,” Lawton said. “We are dealing with really, really small bu
sinesses that can’t afford to take on huge amounts of debt while the tariff situation plays out in the courts.”
Microkits, a small toy electronics business in Charlottesville V.A., was one of the several American operated companies that were heavily impacted by these tariffs, ultimately challenging the Trump Administration through lawsuits. They argued that the trade deficit did not fall under an ‘extraordinary threat’ under IEEPA.
“In a lot of ways, I’m still in denial that this is happening, and I think a lot of other people are still in denial,” David Levi, owner of Microkits, said in an interview with the Daily Progress. “Over time, prices will spread throughout the economy — price increases.”
These lawsuits eventually made it all the way to the Supreme Court in the case Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump. The initial argument was made on Nov. 5, 2025, and the Supreme Court deemed months later, on Feb. 20, that IEEPA did not give Trump the power to impose tariffs, ultimately making Trump’s actions unconstitutional.
“IEEPA’s grant of authority to ‘regulate importation’ falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation,” Chief Justice Roberts said in the majority opinion.
After the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs, he announced a new 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974 that allows these tariffs for up to 150 days. Trump immediately dissented upon the justices decision calling them “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”
Now, many businesses are seeking refunds on the tariffs from the Trump Administration. However, the Supreme Court did not weigh in on whether the federal government should reimburse businesses. The government has collected more than $130 billion from tariffs in Mid-December, and is facing several lawsuits from businesses hoping for their money back.
“The whole tariff situation has been stressful on makers and consumers alike. I think the [Supreme Court’s] decision was the right one, and I would love for businesses and consumers to get refunds, but I’m not sure if it’s going to happen or not,” Lawton said.
Last December, AP Comparative Government students participated in a Supreme Court case simulation. Mary Cohen’s 7th period Government class simulated being justices and attorneys for Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump.
“We always try to pick a case that’s already been argued before the court, so we picked that [Learning Resources Inc. v Trump] case because the justices’ lines of questioning were clear,” Mrs. Cohen said. “They were talking about separation of powers and it was democracy at its most basic. The president tried to exceed his authority and another branch of our government checked.”
After doing a week of preparation for the simulation, the student justices in Mrs. Cohen’s class unanimously voted 0-9 in favor of Trump. Mrs. Cohen believes that Trump won in their court because of the respondent attorneys’ strong defense.
“Our reasoning to defend Learning Resources Inc. was essentially that no other president has enforced a tariff in such a way, and that Trump didn’t go through Congress making it unconstitutional,” Alexandra Pastor, a petitioner’s attorney for the simulation, said. “In the end I believed that Learning Resources Inc. should have won in our court, so I’m glad they actually won.”
“I thought these tariffs were an overstepping of executive power and we have been talking about this 40 year trend of executive power being taken out of bounds,” Mrs. Cohen said. “When the decision came out, it showed that our system still works. I think it was one of those moments where everybody really felt good about the government, and it’s hard to come by these days.”
