Hundreds of American enterprises are throwing their weight behind the petitioners in the case against President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs.

We Pay the Tariffs, a grassroots coalition made up of over 700 small and medium-sized businesses spanning a range of industries, has filed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief ahead of next week’s Supreme Court hearing on the legality of Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs, speaking to the economic impacts that the duties are having on American companies.

Represented by international trade and customs law firm Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., the coalition’s 73-page brief includes a range of testimonials from businesses that said they have incurred major financial losses in the wake of the Trump tariff regime. The consequences of tariff turmoil have included job cuts, higher prices and stalled expansion for these firms.

Equating the challenges of the current tariff landscape to the Covid-19 crisis, We Pay the Tariffs said the administration’s “unbounded and everchanging tariffs” have resulted in a “Trademic.”

“American small and micro businesses, whether traders, manufacturers, retailers, or wholesalers, are the bedrock of the United States economy. For many, the IEEPA Tariffs—imposed without legal authority and with no public participation, comment, or even sufficient notice—pose an existential threat to survival,” the businesses wrote.

“Left in place, the IEEPA Tariffs will eviscerate the American economy and with it the stature of American business in the global supply chain cycle, including U.S. importers, manufacturers and exporters, often a role played by a single company, causing serious and immediate consequences not only for small businesses themselves but also for the communities that depend upon them for goods, services, and employment,” they added.

Deer Stags Concepts, Inc., a small footwear business based in New York, detailed the disruption to operations and sourcing caused by the tariff increases on China, where it sources the vast majority of its products.

“When the tariffs were raised to an additional 145 percent in April, we were forced to halt all shipments from China, as we simply could not afford to pay them. The resulting disruption in supply through the end of May—when the tariffs were reduced to an additional 30 percent—left us unable to fill customer orders and caused significant lost sales,” the company’s president wrote.

Even at the current 30 percent rate, the company is unable to absorb the cost of the tariffs. “Because the changes were implemented immediately and have fluctuated so dramatically, we’ve had no ability to plan or adjust pricing,” he added.

Idaho-based technical outdoor apparel company Wild Rye began looking to source from Asia when “flaws with the manufacturing and supply chain” in the U.S. proved insurmountable. The company settled on China for its expertise in performance apparel and its willingness to work with a smaller brand.

“We’ve been exploring Vietnam, India, Bangladesh and elsewhere in Asia, but have pulled way back on counter sourcing outside of China because of the never-ending changes and ongoing uncertainty,” the company’s owner wrote. “We start development more than 2 years before product hits market, so the risk of things changing again and not being able to accurately forecast costs, has made it hard to justify the massive expense and time commitment it takes to move manufacturing.”

Should the president’s threatened 100 percent added tariffs on China take effect on Nov. 1, the costs would be so high as to “put us out of business almost immediately,” they added. Tariffs on the $1.5 million in product ordered for spring 2026 would lead to a $2.25 million tariff bill.

Much of the businesses’ complaints stemmed from the mercurial nature of the administration’s approach to trade.

“Not only have the high rates of the IEEPA Tariffs proven ruinous, but so too has the near constant change. Because of the lead time inherent in importing merchandise, small businesses must plan far ahead,” the brief said. “The necessary lead time, however, has far exceeded the scant notice provided by the President in announcing, implementing, pausing, unpausing and/or adjusting the IEEPA Tariffs.”

According to the brief, there have been 40 changes—increases, decreases, pauses and other actions—taken with regard to the IEEPA tariffs between Jan. 21 and Oct. 14.

“These tariffs were imposed without legal authority, without notice, and without regard for the fragile ecosystems that sustain small businesses—the backbone of our national economy,” the brief concludes. “Unless this Court affirms the decision below and orders the prompt refund of all illegally collected tariffs, the harm will deepen, and thousands more businesses will vanish.”