Key Takeaways
• On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a pivotal case questioning whether President Trump’s tariffs – imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act – are constitutional. Lower courts have ruled against the tariffs, and the decision could redefine presidential authority over trade policy.
• The promo industry is grappling with unpredictability in global sourcing and manufacturing due to fluctuating tariff policies. Industry leaders are urging the court to deliver a clear ruling to enable long-term planning and stability.
• If the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, affected companies may be eligible for refunds. Regardless of the outcome, experts warn that tariff-related disruptions are likely to persist, prompting businesses to diversify supply chains and closely monitor trade compliance.
Jing Rong wants answers.
The VP of global supply chain and sustainability at Counselor Top 40 supplier HPG (asi/61966) has spent the last several months trying to understand how President Trump’s barrage of tariffs will impact business operations. She’s planned, she’s pivoted, she’s diversified, and still, Rong says an overarching sense of uncertainty remains.
“We’re always one social media post away from things being turned upside down,” she says. “We’re stuck having to guess what the law is rather than getting to interpret it.”
That may change soon. On November 5, the United States Supreme Court will decide a pivotal case to determine whether some of the sweeping tariffs Trump has imposed over the last several months are constitutional under the court of law. It’s poised to have major implications for the future of international trade and potentially redefine the power of the executive branch to enact tariffs without congressional oversight.
The promo industry, which relies on global trade activity to inform manufacturing and sourcing decisions, has a close eye on this case. Rong, for one, is looking to the Supreme Court tariff ruling to offer some much-needed clarity.
“I hope they can make a decision rather than drag this out because this has been going on for so long,” she says. “Whether they uphold or strike it down, they just need to make a decision so businesses can plan.”
The hearing combines two cases,V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald Trump, into a single case that will ultimately determine the legality of Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court will rule on tariffs authorized under IEEPA – notably the initial 10% base tariff, the targeted ‘reciprocal tariffs’ and the ‘trafficked tariffs’ designed to curb the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. The case, however, will not apply to tariffs enacted using other legal vehicles, such as steel and aluminum, automobiles, auto parts and copper tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
ASI Media spoke to experts across global economics, trade law and government affairs to understand how this case could play out – and what it will mean for the promo industry moving forward.
A Unique Case
Since he took office, the president has overdelivered on a promise he made on the campaign trail: enact tariffs on foreign goods to future-proof the economy and preserve national security. In February, he announced the first in a series of executive orders imposing what would become known as trafficked tariffs – levies on China, Canada and Mexico meant to slow these countries’ alleged role in the flow of drugs into the U.S. Then, in April, the president announced an onslaught of reciprocal tariffs, placing a baseline levy of 10% on most countries. He proceeded to gradually slap additional taxes on a broad range of goods and products, including steel and aluminum, steel derivative products, auto parts, softwood lumber, and cabinets and vanities.
Trump has levied other tariffs under the auspices of IEEPA. In July, the president enacted tariffs on Brazilian exports, citing actions of the Brazilian government that threaten the American economy, national security and foreign policy. Then, in August, the president imposed tariffs on India due to its importation of Russian oil and oil products. Trade talks between U.S. officials and foreign leaders are expected to ease some of these tensions, though the result of many of these conversations remains unclear.
“We’re always one social media post away from things being turned upside down. We’re stuck having to guess what the law is rather than getting to interpret it.”
Jing Rong, HPG (asi/61966)
The question on the docket now is whether Trump’s use of IEEPA as a basis for imposing tariffs is constitutional. The case applies specifically to trafficked tariffs and reciprocal tariffs issued under the federal law. Enacted in 1977, IEEPA authorizes the president to regulate international transactions following the declaration of a national emergency.
“Under IEEPA, it doesn’t say the word ‘tariffs,’” explains Nicole Bivens Collinson, a managing principal and operating committee member who leads the government relations and international trade practice group at Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. “So, the question is, is it legal to use tariffs in the context of IEEPA?”
This case, Collinson says, is a unique one, because it has already gone through a district court and the Court of International Trade, a nationwide jurisdiction that aims to resolve matters of customs and international trade law.
“Some people thought because it’s not legal to impose tariffs, there’s no reason to go to the CIT and instead they can take it to the district court,” Collinson says. Others believed the Court of International Trade (CIT) needed to hear the case because the issue of tariffs is front and center. Cases were brought in each of those lower courts, Collinson explained.
“The case is really a coin toss. The Court of Appeals ruled against the tariffs, but it was by no means unanimous.”
Nicole Bivens Collinson, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
The CIT ultimately ruled Trump’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA illegal, moving it to the Federal Court of Appeals.
“And the unusual aspect about that was they had the hearing en bloc, which meant all the judges were there,” Collinson says. “There are 11 judges sitting and we had seven say that they agree with the lower courts that these tariffs are not legal and four who said I think they’re legal.”
Now, businesses across the country are looking to the Supreme Court to make a final decision.
Several Possible Scenarios
This wouldn’t be the first time the Supreme Court hears a case concerning IEEPA. For example, in 1979, former President Jimmy Carter leveraged his powers under IEEPA to freeze Iranian assets in response to the Iranian hostage crisis. In an 8-1 decision, the court found the administration’s actions were in fact authorized under IEEPA.
Read this full feature on ASI Central.
