U.S. Stocks Slip as Investors Await Fed Rate Decision and Monitor Market Shifts 
China Urged to Prioritize Economy Over Territorial Ambitions, Says Taiwan’s President Lai 
Trump Administration Plans Major Rollback of Biden-Era Fuel Economy Standards 
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Medicaid Funding Restrictions Targeting Planned Parenthood 
States Sue Trump Administration Over SNAP Restrictions for Legal Immigrants 
Netflix’s Bid for Warner Bros Discovery Aims to Cut Streaming Costs and Reshape the Industry 
ExxonMobil to Shut Older Singapore Steam Cracker Amid Global Petrochemical Downturn 
Afghan Suspect in Deadly Shooting of National Guard Members Faces First-Degree Murder Charge 
Germany Moves to Approve €2.9 Billion Defense Procurement Package 
Anthropic Reportedly Taps Wilson Sonsini as It Prepares for a Potential 2026 IPO 
BOJ Governor Ueda Highlights Uncertainty Over Future Interest Rate Hikes 
Trump and Lula Discuss Trade, Sanctions, and Security in “Productive” Phone Call 
Oil Prices Rise as Ukraine Targets Russian Energy Infrastructure 
Peru Moves to Declare State of Emergency at Chile Border as Migrant Tensions Rise 
Drones Spotted Near Zelenskiy’s Flight Path in Ireland Trigger Security Alert 
Trump Administration Tightens H-1B Visa Vetting With New Focus on Free Speech and Censorship 
When Donald Trump announced sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg quickly began searching for legal support to challenge the move. Determined to protect his family’s decades-old educational toy business, Woldenberg joined forces with Akin Gump attorneys to take their case, Learning Resources v. Trump, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, along with two others—one filed by Democratic-led states and another by the Liberty Justice Center representing small firms like MicroKits and V.O.S. Selections—argues that Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceed presidential authority.
Trump’s tariffs, ranging from 10% to 50%, have generated about $100 billion for the U.S. but hit small businesses hardest. Large corporations have largely stayed out of the litigation, opting instead for lobbying and exemption strategies. According to economist John Horn of Washington University, major firms can absorb tariff shocks through larger cash reserves and flexible supply chains, while smaller firms face crippling uncertainty and higher costs.
For Woldenberg, the tariffs forced drastic cutbacks, including canceling a 600,000-square-foot expansion, freezing hiring plans, and slashing marketing budgets. “I predicted we’d be smaller and make less money—and both are true,” he said. MicroKits founder David Levi shared similar struggles. His small Virginia-based toy company saw growth stall after tariffs on Chinese imports surged above 100%, forcing him to cut production and staff hours. With key electronic parts unavailable domestically, Levi says U.S. manufacturing remains unrealistic.
Liberty Justice Center attorney Jeffrey Schwab said the response from small businesses nationwide has been “overwhelming.” Victor Schwartz, president of V.O.S. Selections, said his wine import business lost $200,000 due to the tariffs, calling his participation in the lawsuit a “moral imperative.” As the Supreme Court hears arguments, small businesses hope for a ruling that restores stability and fairness to U.S. trade policy.
