Trump Tariffs Hurt Small Businesses: Supreme Court Ruling Could Offer Relief

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday striking down the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs has sent ripples through the business community, offering potential relief to some while simultaneously introducing new uncertainties. While the ruling opens the door for businesses to seek refunds – potentially totaling nearly $150 billion – the immediate aftermath has been complicated by a new 10% global tariff announced by former President Trump following the court’s decision.

For small business owners like Beth Benike, founder of Busy Baby in Oronoco, Minnesota, the legal battle over tariffs has been a significant disruption. Benike, who started her company after developing a prototype to keep babies’ meals contained, experienced firsthand the impact of the “Liberation Day” tariffs announced in April 2025. A $160,000 shipment of her product from China faced an additional $230,000 in tariffs, effectively halting her ability to import. “I would have had to come up with that money within the 30 to 45 days it takes for this stuff to get to America,” she recalled.

Although the tariffs were later reduced, the damage was done. Benike was forced to delay shipments, cut staff from five to three employees, and cash in her retirement savings to stay afloat. She estimates the tariffs resulted in half a million dollars in lost revenue. The Supreme Court ruling offers a potential path to recoup some of the $50,000 in tariffs she ultimately paid, but Benike is also preparing to join a class action lawsuit to expedite the refund process. Her primary concern, however, is the possibility of the Trump administration circumventing the ruling by utilizing other provisions of the law to reinstate tariffs.

The uncertainty surrounding tariffs isn’t limited to small businesses. Dan Turner, owner of Turner Hydraulics in Pennsylvania, faced a similar predicament. An order for a custom item from China was subject to a 25% tariff, which then jumped to 170% with the implementation of the “Liberation Day” tariffs. While the rate eventually fell to 55%, the volatility forced Turner to seek alternative suppliers, ultimately settling on a company in Denmark. However, even that option carries risk, as geopolitical events could trigger new tariffs. “We don’t know which way to go at any time with any international supplier because any political issue could cause tariffs to escalate,” Turner said.

Hanna Scholz, owner of Bike Friday, a custom bicycle manufacturer in Oregon, has also felt the strain. Despite her bikes being built entirely in the U.S., the reliance on foreign components has exposed her business to tariff increases, leading to a 17% drop in U.S. Sales in 2025. Scholz was forced to freeze employee pay raises, cut employee hours, and forgo replacing retiring employees. She hopes the Supreme Court ruling will “contribute to a little bit of calming of the anxiety of the American public.”

The economic impact of Trump’s tariffs extends beyond individual businesses. A study by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy found that American importers and consumers are absorbing 96% of the cost of the tariffs, while foreign exporters bear only 4%. U.S. Tariff revenue was roughly $24 billion per month higher in 2025 than in 2024. This suggests that the tariffs are functioning as a tax on American businesses and consumers, rather than a means of compelling trade partners to alter their behavior.

The Supreme Court’s decision, while potentially offering some financial relief, has been overshadowed by Trump’s swift response: the imposition of a new 10% global tariff. This move underscores his continued belief in the effectiveness of tariffs as a trade strategy, a sentiment he expressed in January when he stated, “We got rich because of tariffs.” The announcement also signals a willingness to challenge the court’s authority and potentially reignite trade tensions.

While some, like Drew Greenblatt, owner of Maryland manufacturer Marlin Steel, have supported higher tariffs as a way to level the playing field for American companies, the experiences of Benike, Turner, and Scholz highlight the significant challenges and uncertainties that tariffs create for small and medium-sized businesses. The average U.S. Tariff rate currently stands around 17%, including levies imposed under IEEPA. The combination of a volatile tariff landscape, the legal complexities surrounding their implementation, and the fact that Americans ultimately bear the cost of these tariffs creates a challenging environment for businesses attempting to navigate the global economy.

The long-term consequences of the Supreme Court ruling and Trump’s subsequent actions remain to be seen. The potential for further tariff adjustments, coupled with the ongoing uncertainty surrounding trade policy, suggests that businesses will need to remain agile and adaptable in the face of an increasingly unpredictable global trade environment.