Five small businesses from different parts of the United States have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, challenging the legality of the new tariffs he recently imposed on foreign imports. The lawsuit, filed on Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, argues that Trump exceeded his presidential authority by declaring an economic emergency based on trade deficits and unilaterally levying tariffs without Congressional approval.
The complaint contends that the administration’s reasoning lacks any constitutional or legislative backing. According to the suit, “Congress has not delegated any such power. The statute the President invokes — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (‘IEEPA’) — does not authorize the President to unilaterally issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs.” This legal move marks a significant challenge to Trump’s trade policy, which the plaintiffs argue is both economically damaging and legally unsound.
Representing the businesses in the lawsuit is the Liberty Justice Center, a legal advocacy organization that has taken up the case on behalf of the small companies. These businesses, the center claims, are suffering due to the tariffs, which impose at least a 10 percent increase on most foreign imports and even higher rates on products from numerous countries. The Liberty Justice Center emphasizes that the burden of these tariffs falls most heavily on small, owner-operated companies that lack the financial resources to absorb such added costs.
“His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination: trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency,” the lawsuit states. This quote underscores the plaintiffs’ argument that Trump’s justification lacks substance and historical precedent. The suit goes on to explain that the idea of a trade deficit being an “unusual and extraordinary threat” — as required under the IEEPA for such presidential action — simply does not hold up to scrutiny.
Another major point raised in the complaint is the inconsistency of the tariff policy. The plaintiffs note that the Trump administration did not limit the tariffs to countries with which the U.S. runs trade deficits. Instead, they imposed tariffs on nations even where no such deficit exists. This, they argue, further undermines the legitimacy of the emergency claim and the rationale for the tariffs. “The Liberty Justice Center noted that the Trump administration imposed tariffs even on countries with which the United States does not have a trade deficit, ‘further undermining the administration’s justification.’”
According to the plaintiffs, this is not only a policy misstep but a violation of constitutional principles. “This Court should declare the President’s unprecedented power grab illegal, enjoin the operation of the executive actions that purport to impose these tariffs under the IEEPA and reaffirm this country’s core founding principle: there shall be no taxation without representation,” the suit declares. This echoes the foundational American belief that taxing authority rests with elected representatives in Congress, not the executive branch acting alone.
The businesses taking legal action are diverse in nature and located in different states, but all share a common problem: the added financial pressure from the tariffs threatens their viability. Among the plaintiffs is VOS Selections, a New York-based importer and distributor of small-production wines, spirits, and sakes. Also included is FishUSA, a Pennsylvania company that operates a retail and wholesale e-commerce business specializing in sportfishing gear and accessories.
Utah-based Genova Pipe, which manufactures plastic piping and related materials used in plumbing, electrical, and irrigation systems, has also joined the suit. MicroKits LLC, located in Virginia, makes educational electronic kits and musical instruments and claims the tariffs are undercutting their profitability. Finally, Terry Precision Cycling, a Vermont-based producer of women’s cycling apparel, is another plaintiff that has reportedly already felt the sting of Trump’s tariff policy.
The lawsuit provides a detailed account of how these tariffs have affected Terry Precision Cycling financially. “Terry Cycling has already paid $25,000 in unplanned tariffs this year for goods for which Terry was the importer of record, and Terry projects that the tariffs will cost the company approximately $250,000 by the end of 2025,” it states. This figure represents a significant cost for a small business and indicates the scale of disruption that the policy is inflicting.
Looking ahead, the outlook is even more alarming for the company. “Terry Cycling in 2026 expects to face an estimated $1.2 million in tariff costs — an amount that is simply not survivable for a business of its size,” the lawsuit continues. The owners argue that such a financial burden is disproportionate and potentially fatal for a small enterprise, and they are seeking judicial relief to avoid a scenario in which they are forced out of business.
The lawsuit aims to not only reverse the tariffs but also to challenge the broader principle of presidential overreach. The plaintiffs and their legal team assert that Trump’s invocation of emergency powers is unjustified and could set a dangerous precedent if left unchecked. They are calling on the court to invalidate the executive orders and restore the constitutional balance of power between Congress and the president.
As of now, the White House has not commented on the lawsuit. CNBC has reportedly reached out for a statement, but no response has been given. The silence leaves open the question of how the current administration will respond to a legal case that centers on actions taken by Trump during his time in office.
This case could have significant implications for future trade policy and the use of emergency powers by presidents. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could place new limits on how far executive authority can go in matters of economic policy. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Trump’s actions could reinforce the expanding role of the presidency in areas traditionally governed by Congress.
In the meantime, the five small businesses continue to struggle with the immediate impact of the tariffs. Their hope is that the legal system will provide the relief they need to survive and that the lawsuit will prompt a broader discussion about the balance of power in American government. Whether or not the court agrees, the outcome of this case is likely to influence the boundaries of executive power for years to come.