决定特朗普关税命运的诉讼--周三开启庭审，原告是一家小玩具厂商，大公司却不见踪影

Core Points - A legal challenge initiated by small toy manufacturers is set to bring Trump's tariff policy to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision, with potential implications for over $100 billion in tariff refunds if the ruling is unfavorable to Trump [1] - The case centers on whether the President exceeded his statutory authority in implementing tariffs, with the Supreme Court hearing arguments from both sides [1][4] - The plaintiffs, led by toy manufacturer Rick Woldenberg, argue that the unpredictable tariff policies have severely impacted their businesses, with Woldenberg's companies facing an estimated $20 million to $30 million in tariffs this year, compared to $2.3 million last year [2] Small Businesses' Struggles - Rick Woldenberg's companies have experienced significant financial strain due to the fluctuating tariff policies, exemplified by a specific product that had to be rushed to avoid new tariffs on imports from India [2] - The absence of large corporations in the lawsuit contrasts sharply with the active participation of small businesses, highlighting a "small business versus government" dynamic [3] Legal Dispute Over Presidential Authority - The core legal issue revolves around the boundaries of presidential power, with the Trump administration citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as justification for imposing tariffs [4] - Opponents argue that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, and that tariffs are essentially a form of taxation that requires congressional authorization [5] Government's Defense and Contingency Plans - The White House defends the tariff policy, claiming it has led to trade agreements that benefit American workers and industries [5] - In anticipation of a potential loss, the White House is reportedly preparing backup plans to maintain tariffs through other legal mechanisms, although this case does not directly affect tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles imposed under different laws [5]