A small Vermont woodworking business has become the unlikely centerpiece of a landmark Supreme Court case that could reshape the constitutional limits of presidential trade authority. Green Mountain Crafters, a family-owned furniture maker employing just 37 people, filed suit against the federal government after facing crushing costs from the expanded tariff program reinstated by the Trump administration earlier this year.
The case, formally titled “Green Mountain Crafters v. United States,” challenges the constitutionality of the president’s unilateral authority to impose broad tariffs without congressional approval. It marks the first time the high court will directly examine the limits of executive power in trade policy since the dramatic expansion of tariffs began in 2018.
“We’re not political activists – we’re just trying to survive,” explains Robert Keller, the third-generation owner of Green Mountain Crafters. “When the lumber tariffs doubled overnight, we faced a choice between laying off a third of our workforce or fighting back through the courts.”
The small business’s journey to the Supreme Court highlights the real-world consequences of trade policy decisions that often get lost in abstract economic debates. According to data from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the latest round of tariffs is costing American businesses and consumers an estimated $135 billion annually – with small businesses bearing a disproportionate burden due to their limited ability to absorb or pass on costs.
The financial impact on small enterprises like Green Mountain has been severe. The company’s records, submitted as evidence in the case, show a 37% increase in materials costs directly attributable to tariffs on Canadian lumber and European hardware supplies. These expenses have consumed nearly all of the company’s previous profit margin.
“When large corporations face tariffs, they have the scale to negotiate with suppliers or shift production overseas,” explains Elise Morgan, chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business. “Small businesses simply don’t have those options.”
The Vermont company’s legal challenge centers on the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate trade. Their attorneys argue that the broad delegation of tariff authority to the executive branch through legislation like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the Trade Act has created an unconstitutional imbalance of power.
The case has attracted significant attention from constitutional scholars. “This could be the most consequential separation-of-powers case in decades,” notes Lawrence Tribe, constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School. “The Court has long avoided directly addressing how much trade authority Congress can delegate to the president.”
Federal Reserve data indicates the tariffs have contributed to inflation pressures across multiple sectors. The September Consumer Price Index showed a 5.8% year-over-year increase in furniture prices, with analysts attributing approximately half of that rise directly to tariff-related costs.
Business groups from across the political spectrum have filed amicus briefs supporting Green Mountain Crafters. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail Federation, and even agricultural associations representing Trump’s rural base have expressed concerns about executive overreach in trade policy.
“This isn’t about partisan politics,” says Jennifer Schulp, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute. “It’s about whether one person should have unchecked authority to raise taxes on American businesses through tariffs without congressional input.”
The Biden administration, which initially rolled back many Trump-era tariffs before facing political pressure to reinstate some protectionist measures, finds itself in the awkward position of defending broad executive authority it once criticized. Justice Department lawyers argue that Congress has legitimately delegated trade powers to the president through various statutes, and courts should defer to the political branches on economic policy.
Supreme Court observers note the case presents interesting ideological crosscurrents. Conservative justices who typically favor executive authority may be skeptical of expansive trade powers, while liberal justices concerned about economic inequality might worry about tariffs’ regressive effects on consumers.
The Vermont company’s lawsuit has resonated with other small businesses nationwide. A survey by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council found that 72% of small business owners report negative impacts from recent tariff increases, with 31% describing the financial strain as “severe” or “existential.”
“What makes this case particularly compelling is that it puts a human face on abstract trade policy debates,” explains Margaret Collins, professor of international trade law at Georgetown University. “The justices will be confronted with concrete evidence of how executive trade decisions directly impact American workers and small business owners.”
Oral arguments are scheduled for December, with a decision expected by June 2026. Whatever the outcome, the case represents a rare moment when small business interests have reached the highest levels of constitutional jurisprudence.
As Keller puts it: “We never wanted to be at the center of a Supreme Court case. We just want to keep making furniture, employing our neighbors, and passing this business to the next generation. But when government policy threatens all that, sometimes you have to stand up.”
