In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to decide a case that could shift the balance of power between the White House and Congress – and reshape how businesses navigate global trade risk.

The case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, challenges the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At its core, it asks whether the President can unilaterally impose, extend, or adjust tariffs under IEEPA after declaring a national emergency, without returning to Congress. The outcome could unlock billions in refunds for affected companies, tighten judicial review of trade actions, and force a broader reckoning with executive authority in economic policy.

The stakes are high. And the implications go far beyond trade.

What the Court Is Actually Weighing

The Trump administration used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a wide range of Chinese imports, citing national emergencies and foreign threats. But the challenge brought by Learning Resources and others focuses less on the why and more on the how.

The Court must decide:

Did the executive branch overstep the authority granted by Congress under IEEPA?

Can the President keep adjusting tariffs based on a standing national emergency declaration, without ongoing Congressional approval?

Are companies entitled to refunds if those tariffs are later ruled unlawful?

During oral arguments, Justices across the ideological spectrum voiced concerns about unchecked executive power. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett both questioned whether an initial finding should give the President indefinite authority. Justice Gorsuch warned of the dangers of unconstrained trade power, while Justice Sotomayor zeroed in on the lack of procedural fairness for businesses seeking relief.

That kind of bipartisan skepticism is rare. It suggests the Court may be ready to draw new boundaries.

Why This Case Matters More Than It Seems

The headlines will likely focus on tariffs and China. But the deeper implications touch nearly every global business and every White House to come.

A Reset on Executive Power

If the Court limits the use of IEEPA, future administrations may be forced to return to Congress for approval of extended or revised trade actions. That would be a major shift – reintroducing legislative oversight into a domain that has become increasingly dominated by executive discretion.

A Path to Refunds

For companies, the most immediate impact may be financial. If the Court rules that these tariffs were imposed or extended unlawfully, businesses could pursue billions in refunds. That would also establish a precedent for challenging future trade actions and raise the stakes for getting them right.

Clarity, but Also Complexity

A ruling in favor of Learning Resources could bring greater predictability for importers and global supply chains. But it would also open the door to more litigation and place new burdens on companies to monitor the legality of policy changes, not just their bottom-line impact.

A Signal on Delegated Power

This case could continue a broader trend from the past several terms, where the Court has increasingly shown willingness to revisit how much power Congress delegates to the executive branch, especially in regulatory and economic matters. If the Justices continue to tighten these limits, the effects could continue to ripple into environmental law, labor regulation, and beyond.

Global Repercussions

Other governments are watching closely. If U.S. courts rein in presidential trade powers, it could change the tone of global negotiations and alter expectations in future disputes. It could also give international trading partners new leverage or new reasons to challenge U.S. moves at the World Trade Organization.

If the Trump Administration Prevails

Should the Court uphold the administration’s actions, the message will be clear. The President has broad authority to manage trade policy under IEEPA, including imposing and adjusting tariffs in response to declared national emergencies or foreign threats.

That would preserve the status quo on tariffs, but also the unpredictability that comes with it. Companies would face continued uncertainty about how and when tariffs might change, and how much say Congress or the courts might have.

For some industries, especially those protected by tariffs, this could be welcome news. For others, it could reinforce the need for strong internal planning and government affairs engagement.

What Business Leaders Should Be Doing Now

Whatever the outcome, this is a strategic inflection point. Companies need to think beyond legal exposure and assess what this case reveals about the regulatory and political environment.

Some practical questions:

How exposed is our business to shifts in tariff law or enforcement?

Could a refund, or the loss of one, impact earnings expectations?

Are we prepared to explain that outcome to stakeholders?

Do we have a plan for navigating increased scrutiny or a rush of litigation?

How are we preparing for the next administration’s approach to trade?

The smart move is not to wait. Whether the Court limits executive power or affirms it, the policy environment will remain fluid. The most resilient companies will have already mapped out multiple scenarios and coordinated across legal, finance, communications, and operations teams.

One Case, Many Signals

Learning Resources v. Trump is not just about one set of tariffs. It is a test of how trade power is used, how far it can go, and what legal remedies companies can expect in an era of aggressive policy moves. In other words, this is not just a case. It is a signal. And in times like these, signals are what smart leaders watch.

Geoff Mordock leads Issues Management at FleishmanHillard. He is an SVP & Senior Partner based in Orange County and brings more than 25 years of experience helping organizations manage and shape corporate reputation, including navigating significant crises and issues through critical moments.