Why Predictability in Trade Policy Matters: What a New Supreme Court Filing Means for Retailers and Consumers

Retailers operate in an environment defined by constant change—but when it comes to trade policy, unpredictability is a cost that businesses and consumers alike cannot afford.

The Retail Litigation Center recently led a coalition of trade associations—including the National Retail Federation, the Consumer Technology Association, and the American Apparel & Footwear Association—in filing an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the limits of the government’s authority to impose and expand tariffs.

At the center of the case is a straightforward but consequential question: how much authority does the Executive Branch have to adjust tariffs once they are in place? The answer has significant implications—not just for retailers, but for the broader economy and the consumers who ultimately feel the effects of trade policy decisions.

The case the coalition is asking the Supreme Court to address follows the Court’s landmark decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, in which it held that there was no authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This case examines a different provision of trade law, Section 301 of the Trade Act—one that the administration has indicated it intends to use to reconstruct the tariffs that were struck down.

A Question of Process, Not Policy

The filing does not challenge the government’s ability to impose tariffs through the Section 301 process. Before tariffs can be imposed under Section 301, the law requires investigation, consultation, public input, and reasoned decision-making. These steps ensure that trade actions are thoughtful, transparent, and informed by real-world impacts.

The concern raised is that those safeguards can largely be bypassed.

In this case, USTR initially imposed tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports through the full Section 301 process. It then invoked another section of the Trade Act (Section 307), which allows USTR to “modify” existing actions, to expand those tariffs tenfold—to approximately $500 billion in goods, covering virtually all imports from China.

Unless the Supreme Court steps in, nothing will stop USTR from following this case’s playbook: initiate Section 301 investigations into dozens of countries (as it already has done in its effort to replicate the IEEPA tariffs), impose modest tariffs under Section 301 on imports from those countries, then use Section 307 to expand those tariffs ten-, 100-, or 1,000-fold while bypassing Section 301’s strict prerequisites.

Our brief argues this type of expansion authority goes far beyond what Congress authorized or intended. The authority to “modify” an action was meant to allow for modest adjustments—not sweeping changes of this scale.

Why Predictability Is Essential

For retailers, predictability is not an abstract concept—it is foundational to how businesses operate.

Retailers manage complex global supply chains, make long-term sourcing decisions, and plan inventory months in advance. Sudden and significant shifts in tariff policy can disrupt those plans, increase costs, and introduce uncertainty that ripples throughout the economy.

That uncertainty does not stop with businesses. It ultimately affects consumers—through higher costs, reduced product availability, and fewer choices on store shelves.

Our brief emphasizes that when tariff authority is exercised without clear limits or a consistent process, it creates volatility that makes it harder for businesses to plan and invest. Predictability, by contrast, allows companies to adapt, compete, and continue delivering value to customers.

The Role of the Courts

The Supreme Court is not being asked to weigh in on trade strategy or geopolitical priorities. Instead, the question is a legal one: whether the Trade Act allows for sweeping expansions of tariff actions without following the robust procedures Congress established.

The brief also points to a broader principle reflected in recent Supreme Court decisions: when an agency claims authority over issues of major economic and political significance, that authority must be grounded in clear direction from Congress. In this case, Congress did not clearly authorize the kind of expansive tariff changes at issue.

A Call for Clarity

At its core, this case is about ensuring that trade policy operates within a framework that is predictable, transparent, and accountable.

Retailers—and the consumers they serve—benefit when rules are clear and consistently applied. They are best positioned to plan, invest, and compete when policy changes follow a defined and reliable process.

The RLC’s brief underscores a simple but important point: predictability is not just good for business—it is essential for a stable and well-functioning economy.

And in trade policy, as in retail, clarity and consistency are what ultimately build trust.