WASHINGTON (AP) — In a significant development regarding international trade policies, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined a request from Illinois-based Learning Resources Inc. to expedite proceedings concerning the legality of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump.

Background of the Case

Learning Resources Inc., a toy company, sought an urgent decision from the nation’s highest court, arguing that the ongoing tariffs and resulting uncertainty pose a “massive impact” on businesses across the country. The company believes that the matter demands immediate attention to prevent further disruption.

The Court’s Decision

In a brief order, the Supreme Court opted not to fast-track the case, providing no detailed reasoning behind their decision. This reluctance aligns with the Court’s general practice of waiting for lower courts to resolve issues before stepping in, indicating a preference for thorough legal processes.

Next Steps in the Legal Battle

The case is set to be considered by an appeals court later this July. While Learning Resources Inc. initially scored an early victory in a lower court, that decision is currently suspended as higher courts review a related ruling that sought to impose a broader restriction on Trump’s tariffs. For the time being, the appeals court has permitted the continuation of tariffs under the emergency powers law.

Arguments and Implications

Learning Resources Inc. contends that Trump’s use of emergency powers to levy tariffs bypassed Congress, raising significant constitutional questions. Conversely, the Trump administration defends its actions, asserting that the emergency powers law grants the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies, citing the long-standing trade deficit as justification.

Conclusion

The refusal by the Supreme Court to expedite the case places it squarely in the hands of the lower courts for the time being. As the appeals court prepares to hear arguments, businesses and policymakers alike will be closely monitoring the developments, as the outcome could have far-reaching implications for U.S. trade policy.