An Illinois-based family toy business, Learning Resources,
led by CEO Rick Woldenberg, is challenging former President Donald Trump’s
tariffs before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing Trump exceeded his authority
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The case—set for
hearing on November 5, 2025—could have significant economic and political
implications, with the company citing millions in losses and urging the highest
court to clarify presidential tariff powers.
Family Toy Business Challenges Trump's Tariffs at Supreme Court
As reported by Allison Cantor of Fox 32 Chicago, Vernon
Hills-based Learning Resources and its affiliated brand hand2mind are preparing
to fight President Trump's tariffs before the U.S. Supreme Court. The companies
argue that Trump’s invocation of the IEEPA to impose tariffs lacks constitutional
and statutory authority. The family-owned business, which focuses on
educational toys, claims the tariffs have inflicted heavy financial harm,
costing them approximately two million dollars in 2024 and projecting up to
fourteen million dollars in 2025 alone.
Elana Ruffman, Vice President of Marketing & Product Development at hand2mind, highlighted the logistical and financial burdens caused by the tariffs, noting how frequent product relocations due to shifting tariffs incur costs around $5,000 per move for updating labels and manufacturing adjustments.
“Every time you move a product, it costs money,”
Ruffman said, emphasising the impact on their operations and workforce.
Legal Basis: Questioning the Scope of Presidential Authority
Rick Woldenberg, CEO of the fourth-generation family business,
brought the lawsuit against the Trump administration in April 2025. Woldenberg
contends that the tariffs imposed under Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day”
tariff program drastically raised their import costs, which could increase from
$2.3 million to nearly $100 million if fully implemented. Woldenberg sees the
Supreme Court case as potentially historic, aiming for a ruling on whether
these tariffs are lawful and seeking remedies if the court finds they are not.
The legal crux centers on the 1977 International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which permits a president to act in response to
"any unusual and extraordinary threat" impacting U.S. national
security, economy, or foreign policy. But lower courts have ruled that the
IEEPA does not give the president unfettered power to impose tariffs
arbitrarily, a position backed by a U.S. District Court ruling in May 2025
which favoured Woldenberg’s companies.
Tariffs' Impact on the Toy Industry and Broader Economy
According to Rachel Jones from Education Week, Learning
Resources and hand2mind primarily manufacture their products overseas, with
about 60% imported from China before recent tariff-related production shifts.
Their product lines include items promoting STEM education, coding,
social-emotional learning, and more. The tariffs have forced the companies to
reconsider and alter their supply chains significantly.
Trump’s tariff regime, initiated in his second term, started
with a baseline 10% duty on many imported goods, with potential tariffs on
China reaching as high as 130% if fully applied. This created an unpredictable
business landscape for many companies dependent on global supply chains,
including the toy makers, who find rapid tariff changes particularly
disruptive.
Woldenberg expressed that his decision to sue was driven by
a sense of responsibility not just toward his own company, but also to set a precedent
and encourage others to stand against unfair trade practices.
Broader Litigation Landscape and Related Cases
The Supreme Court is set to hear a consolidated group of
cases challenging Trump’s tariff authority, including Learning Resources'
lawsuit. Other related cases involve coalitions of states led by Oregon and
libertarian advocacy groups representing small businesses like wine distributors
and other educational manufacturers. Attorneys from the prominent Akin Gump law
firm represent Learning Resources in what many regard as a pivotal case on
executive tariff powers.
Despite the widespread effect of the tariffs, many major
U.S. corporations have reportedly avoided engaging in the litigation, neither
filing lawsuits nor submitting amicus briefs to express their views. This
absence makes the family-owned toy business’ challenge all the more notable in
the broader debate over presidential trade authority.
Urgency and Court Schedule
The Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on November
5, 2025, an unusually swift move reflecting the case’s urgency and its
wide-reaching implications. The Trump administration has requested expedited
consideration, seeking to speed up the resolution of this contentious issue.
Although the court’s schedule often involves lengthy deliberations, the
significance and complexities of these tariff disputes have pushed for faster
judicial review.
Other Businesses Affected
Aside from the toy companies, American small businesses from other sectors have also been vocal about the tariffs’ harmful impact. For example, Terry Precision Cycling, a Vermont-based company specialising in women's cycling apparel, joined the Supreme Court challenge fearing that the tariffs might force them out of business due to increased import costs. Company president Nik Holm described feeling
“like our backs were up against the wall,”
underscoring the widespread economic distress.
A Potentially Landmark Case for Presidential Trade Powers
This Supreme Court case marks a crucial moment in defining the balance of trade authority between the executive branch and the courts. Rick Woldenberg and other small business owners await a decision that could limit presidential powers under the IEEPA and reshape U.S. trade policy for years to come. Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the high stakes for family businesses navigating international tariffs and the broader American economy affected by executive trade decisions.