Businesses struggle to plan
Firms — especially small businesses — say they cannot make sourcing or pricing decisions while tariff rules and their legal basis keep changing, so many have joined states in suing over the 10% import tax. ( ). The result is cumulative commercial uncertainty: the administration’s first tariff architecture was struck down, the replacement is now before judges, and companies must operate amid the risk of sudden cost shocks and rerouted supply chains. ( ).
A company that imports zippers, bike parts, or kitchen tools can usually survive a tariff bill. What it cannot price around is a tariff that gets struck down in February, replaced days later, and argued in court again on April 10. (nytimes.com) That is where a new fight landed Friday in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, where 24 mostly Democratic-led states and several small businesses asked judges to cancel President Donald Trump’s 10 percent global import tax. (apnews.com) The tax now in court started on February 24, 2026, after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier, broader tariff program in February. The administration switched to a different legal tool instead of dropping the import charges. (nbcnews.com) The old tariffs relied on emergency powers. The new tariffs rely on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a rarely used law written for balance-of-payments problems that lets a president impose temporary import restrictions. (politico.com) The states and businesses say that law does not fit the way Trump is using it now. Their argument is that a long-running trade deficit is not the kind of short-term payments crisis Congress had in mind in 1974. (apnews.com) Judges on the trade court pressed government lawyers on that point during oral arguments on April 10. According to multiple reports, the panel questioned whether routine trade deficits can justify a blanket 10 percent tax on imports from around the world. (politico.com) For businesses, the legal theory is only half the problem. A small importer has to decide months ahead whether to order inventory, reroute suppliers, raise shelf prices, or eat the extra cost, and each choice can be wrong if the tariff disappears or expands before the shipment arrives. (nytimes.com) That planning problem hits small firms harder than giant chains. A national retailer can spread a 10 percent shock across thousands of products, but a niche importer that lives on one container of seasonal goods can lose its margin on a single customs bill. (nytimes.com) The states joined the case for a similar reason at a bigger scale. Their filings say the tariffs raise costs for public agencies, universities, and infrastructure projects that buy imported equipment, while also squeezing local businesses that depend on foreign parts. (ag.ny.gov) The immediate question is whether the trade court lets the 10 percent tariff stand. The bigger problem is that companies are now planning supply chains around two moving targets at once: the cost of imports and the legal basis for charging that cost in the first place. (apnews.com)
