Small business owners across the United States remain doubtful they will receive refunds after the Supreme Court struck down large parts of former President Donald Trump’s tariff regime, a decision that could theoretically free up as much as $175 billion in repayments to companies that paid import duties under the controversial policy.
While the ruling opens the door to compensation claims, many entrepreneurs warn that the legal and administrative hurdles involved in pursuing refunds may make the process prohibitively complex, particularly for smaller firms already struggling with rising costs. Trump himself has acknowledged that litigation could drag on for years, leaving businesses uncertain whether filing claims is worthwhile.
The tariffs, implemented under Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” trade policy, targeted a wide range of imported goods, sharply increasing the cost of materials for companies reliant on global supply chains. Many firms have already absorbed the financial strain, raising prices and delaying investment plans.
Elizabeth Vitanza, who co-owns a lighting and home furnishings business in Los Angeles, described the impact as widespread. “All of the modern brands we carry have raised prices by at least 12 percent over the past year. None of this is pro-business or pro-American,” she said.
Vitanza and her husband, John Ballon, rushed an order with a Swedish partner to avoid incoming tariffs following Trump’s 2024 re-election, but the shipment was still subject to duties. “We ended up paying a five-figure tariff bill. Money we had earmarked to renovate the showroom and possibly increase staff salaries suddenly had to cover unexpected import taxes,” Ballon said. The couple has since scaled back expansion plans.
Other sectors have reported similar disruptions. A Texas furniture manufacturer cited rising costs for imported lumber and specialized hardware, forcing the company to pass on expenses to customers. Minnesota-based outdoor equipment company Granite Gear faced uncertainty when import duties fluctuated from 18 to 46 percent, later reduced to 20 percent following trade negotiations with Vietnam. Manager Rob Coughlin said the volatility made pricing nearly impossible.
“For small brands, we just don’t have leverage with retailers,” Coughlin said. “Big companies can push back on price increases. We cannot.”
Niche businesses have also struggled. Dr. Charlie Elrod, founder of a natural livestock health products company, said tariffs on Brazilian imports added roughly $1 million in costs over a year, ultimately forcing a 5 percent price increase for customers.
More than 1,000 companies have filed lawsuits seeking reimbursement, and a US trade court recently ordered the government to begin processing refunds. Despite this, entrepreneurs warn that legal fees and administrative burdens may outweigh potential repayment. Vitanza said her company is tracking payments in case they pursue a claim but is cautious about expectations.
Howard Trenholme, a bakery owner in Utah, described the process as impractical. “As an end user buying through multiple suppliers, the legal fees alone could wipe out any refund,” he said. Granite Gear’s Coughlin agreed, adding that seeking reimbursement would likely be a “waste of time and money.”
For many small businesses, the legacy of Trump’s tariff policy continues to influence decisions. With global supply chains now less predictable and trade policy subject to abrupt change, entrepreneurs say the priority is staying afloat rather than fighting protracted legal battles over past losses.
