Azul Airlines Wins Court Approval for $2 Billion Debt Restructuring and New Capital Raise 
Mexico Moves to Increase Tariffs on Asian Imports to Protect Domestic Industries 
Apple App Store Injunction Largely Upheld as Appeals Court Rules on Epic Games Case 
Trump Signals Two Final Candidates for Fed Chair, Calls for Presidential Input on Interest Rates 
EU Court Cuts Intel Antitrust Fine to €237 Million Amid Long-Running AMD Dispute 
China’s November Economic Data Signals Slowing Industrial Output and Weak Consumer Demand 
Bolivia Orders Pre-Trial Detention of Former President Luis Arce Over Embezzlement Probe 
ANZ Faces Legal Battle as Former CEO Shayne Elliott Sues Over A$13.5 Million Bonus Dispute 
South Korea Extends Bond Market Stabilization Measures Amid Rising Financial Risks 
Tunisia Protests Grow as Opposition Unites Against President Kais Saied’s Rule 
Trump Criticizes EU’s €120 Million Fine on Elon Musk’s X Platform 
Air Force One Delivery Delayed to 2028 as Boeing Faces Rising Costs 
Australia Enforces World-First Social Media Age Limit as Global Regulation Looms 
China Adds Domestic AI Chips to Government Procurement List as U.S. Considers Easing Nvidia Export Curbs 
Fed Rate Cut Signals Balance Between Inflation and Jobs, Says Mary Daly 
Fortescue Expands Copper Portfolio With Full Takeover of Alta Copper 
When Donald Trump announced sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg quickly began searching for legal support to challenge the move. Determined to protect his family’s decades-old educational toy business, Woldenberg joined forces with Akin Gump attorneys to take their case, Learning Resources v. Trump, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, along with two others—one filed by Democratic-led states and another by the Liberty Justice Center representing small firms like MicroKits and V.O.S. Selections—argues that Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceed presidential authority.
Trump’s tariffs, ranging from 10% to 50%, have generated about $100 billion for the U.S. but hit small businesses hardest. Large corporations have largely stayed out of the litigation, opting instead for lobbying and exemption strategies. According to economist John Horn of Washington University, major firms can absorb tariff shocks through larger cash reserves and flexible supply chains, while smaller firms face crippling uncertainty and higher costs.
For Woldenberg, the tariffs forced drastic cutbacks, including canceling a 600,000-square-foot expansion, freezing hiring plans, and slashing marketing budgets. “I predicted we’d be smaller and make less money—and both are true,” he said. MicroKits founder David Levi shared similar struggles. His small Virginia-based toy company saw growth stall after tariffs on Chinese imports surged above 100%, forcing him to cut production and staff hours. With key electronic parts unavailable domestically, Levi says U.S. manufacturing remains unrealistic.
Liberty Justice Center attorney Jeffrey Schwab said the response from small businesses nationwide has been “overwhelming.” Victor Schwartz, president of V.O.S. Selections, said his wine import business lost $200,000 due to the tariffs, calling his participation in the lawsuit a “moral imperative.” As the Supreme Court hears arguments, small businesses hope for a ruling that restores stability and fairness to U.S. trade policy.
