A fourth generation family business says it is not only fighting for its own survival but core constitutional rights with a case against President Trump’s tariffs the Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday.

Learning Resources Brands is a Chicago-area educational toy company with about 500 employees in the United States. It paid about $2 million in tariffs last year but the number jumped to about $14 million this year due to the higher tariffs.

It is one of a group of small businesses involved in the challenge to the heart of the president’s economic policy. The suit claims Mr. Trump’s use of reciprocal tariffs is an overstep of his powers and should be struck down. The United States Court of International Trade and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have both ruled against the administration and now the fate of the tariffs lies with the Nine.

“The gravity of this case is tremendous. I mean, this goes all the way back to the founding father in the Boston Tea Party,” the company’s vice president of marketing, Elana Woldenberg Ruffman, tells the Sun. “This is talking about stuff that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote essays about. The core issues of this case are taxation without representation.”

Mr. Trump levied the worldwide reciprocal tariffs in April as part of his “Liberation Day” announcement by relying on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Opponents say the import duties are a use of the law that lawmakers never intended and has not been seen before.

The Supreme Court will decide in Learning Resources, Inc. V. Trump if Mr. Trump can continue to wield tariffs as a weapon to get trade concessions from foreign countries to the tune of trillions of dollars. If the court rules against the president, it could force the government to refund tens of millions of dollars.

Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman says the founding fathers very intentionally gave taxation power to Congress and not the executive branch.

“They’re forced to talk through issues and figure out how to compromise so that whatever laws they’re passing are representative of the will of the entire United States is not just one person who’s making decisions,” Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman says. “We’re grateful that we’re given the opportunity to have this issue debated because we feel like it’s a very important one that goes back to the foundation of our country.”

Part of the frustration for Learning Resources is the uncertainty over changing tariff rates. When tariffs were first announced on China, the company started moving its manufacturing to India, only to find Mr. Trump later slap higher rates on India, forcing the company to shift back to China. Each time the company moves a steel mold used to manufacture a product it costs about $5,000 and the firm loses manufacturing time.

“Uncertainty is the one thing that’s predictable about this tariff policy, meaning it will change. Because it will change, it makes it very difficult for businesses to make decisions and do long term planning,” Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman says. “No company wants to make a decision that they might have to unwind in two months. That’s very costly.” 

Many companies are facing tariff-related challenges, whether they’re in manufacturing or not. Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman says Learning Resources has cut budgets including a new marketing campaign which affects advertising companies. She says another cut to new product development also hurts outside firms.

Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman says the effects of the tariffs are only trickling into the economy because companies are waiting to make decisions because there has been so much uncertainty.

“They don’t want to do something until they absolutely have to. Because it may change,” Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman says, noting that tariffs on China bounced from nothing to 145 percent and are now 47 percent.

Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman wouldn’t discuss how much her company is spending on the lawsuit, only saying it is a significant amount. She says they have accepted some contributions, but nothing from a foreign source and nothing from a political group.

A diverse group of both liberals and conservatives has filed briefs with the Supreme Court in support of the company’s position.

A vice president at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, Scott Lincicome, filed a brief calling the administration’s rationale for imposing the tariffs “groundless.”

Two conservative groups, the Goldwater Institute and the John Locke Foundation, filed a brief saying the framers of the Constitution would have “reacted with horror” to a president being allowed to unilaterally impose taxes.

“It runs contrary to everything they held dear,” the brief states.

“Somebody had to do something so we’re proud that we did, but at its core we view this as really just a fundamental constitutional debate,” Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman says. 

“It’s not political. It’s not about going after any individuals,” Ms. Woldenberg Ruffman adds. “The reason that we brought the lawsuit is because taxation belongs to Congress.”