A recent Supreme Court decision has significant implications for small business owners, particularly those who have felt the financial sting of tariffs imposed during the Trump administration. In a ruling that confirms President Trump overstepped legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), small businesses across America may be poised to receive refunds for hundreds of millions in tariffs they paid.
Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) hailed the court’s decision, declaring, “This case was Small Businesses v. Trump, and small businesses won.” Markey emphasized that while larger corporations typically found loopholes or exemptions, small businesses bore the financial burden, contributing to an estimated $70 billion in tariffs from March to December 2025 alone. In Massachusetts, local small businesses footed a bill of approximately $734 million.
With this ruling, small business owners could finally see relief from what Markey describes as an “illegal tax.” He argues that it is no longer acceptable for the Biden administration to overlook the financial hardships these businesses have faced. “It is a moral obligation for this administration to return every last cent taken from small businesses by this illegal tax,” he stated emphatically.
The context of this decision highlights a range of economic pressures that small business owners have confronted in recent years, particularly heightened by Trump’s economic policies, including tariffs. In a recent report, Markey detailed how the cumulative effect of these tariffs exacerbated an affordability crisis affecting Main Streets and working families nationwide.
Real-world implications of this ruling extend beyond just financial returns. The tariffs impacted various sectors, from manufacturing and retail to services, stymieing growth and causing operational challenges. Small business owners, many already operating on thin margins, faced difficult choices about pricing, workforce management, and inventory.
In addressing the potential for refunds, there are important considerations for small business owners looking to navigate the aftermath of the ruling. The refund process, while necessary, may introduce its own set of complexities. Small businesses will need clearer guidelines on how to apply for refunds, what documentation to provide, and when they can expect compensation. Markey has already been proactive in calling for an equitable tariff refund process from federal agencies.
Furthermore, while this ruling offers hope for recovering lost funds, small businesses may want to keep an eye on its political ramifications. The economic landscape could shift as lawmakers re-evaluate trade policies in light of the court’s findings, potentially influencing future legislation and market dynamics.
Markey’s tireless efforts have included previous calls for better support structures for small businesses. His initiatives, such as the proposed Small Business RELIEF Act, seek to exempt small businesses from tariffs and ensure that those affected receive refunds. This ongoing advocacy aims to provide not just immediate financial relief but also long-term protection for small businesses from unforeseen regulatory burdens.
Small business owners should remain informed about evolving federal policies and seek localized support to navigate the complexities of applications for refunds. Joining trade groups or local business associations may also provide additional information and resources as the refund process develops.
As small business owners look to recover from this impactful ruling, they will benefit from remaining engaged with state and federal representatives advocating for their interests. Markey’s continued push for transparency in federal responses can serve as a catalyst for collective action among small businesses, reinforcing their significant role in the national economy.
This Supreme Court decision presents an opportunity for small businesses to regain financial footing and advocate for their rights against burdensome regulations. For further details on the ruling and its implications, please refer to the original press release here.
