Lawyers Brace Clients for Turmoil Ahead of SCOTUS Tariff Ruling

More than three months of waiting for a US Supreme Court tariffs decision has sparked daily calls to lawyers from anxious clients posing “what if” scenarios surrounding a possible ruling.

Trade, customs and policy lawyers at firms including Bracewell LLP, Vinson & Elkins and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Field have counseled a wait-and-see approach before the court’s ruling while recommending stop-gap measures such as changing how they move goods.

The lawyers have prepared their clients for ongoing and expected risks, with the high court set to rule as early as Friday or next week.

“We’ve never been through a period of trade policy turbulence like the one we’re going through right now,” said Joshua Zive, a Bracewell senior principal who works on legislative, regulatory, and legal compliance in Washington, DC. “This has really caused a lot of uncertainty and anxiety on the client side.”

A Supreme Court ruling in the case Learning Resources v. Trump will determine if the president wields power to issue tariffs by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as IEEPA. A ruling striking down the tariffs could refund tens of billions of dollars to companies in the president’s biggest legal defeat so far in his second term.

“You wake up in the morning and you find that the President has Truth Socialed something out that has the potential to add 25% or 50% to your project costs,” Zive said, referring to clients.

Joyce Adetutu, a Vinson & Elkins partner based in Houston, has scrutinized clients’ contracts to determine if they can use force majeure and change-of-law clauses to avoid the costs of having their goods shipped abroad.

“Overnight, the cost of their projects just astronomically increased as a result of the presidential action,” Adetutu said.

Devin Sikes, an Akin international trade partner who splits his time between Houston and Washington, DC, said he’s working with clients who are exploring “relief options” such as restructuring how products are sourced, manufactured and distributed to follow regulations and limit tariff exposure.

“The common theme in these discussions is that tariffs are an important component of this administration’s overall trade policy and companies should prepare accordingly,” he said.

Texas Impact

The uncertainty leading up to the Supreme Court decision has been particularly palpable in Texas.

The state is an international trade hub that saw exports surge by nearly two-thirds to $455 billion in 2024 from $278 billion in 2020, according to a report from the University of Texas at Dallas. Imports rose to $398 billion in 2024 from $248 billion in 2020, according to the university.

The president’s tariff blitz, initially launched in April 2025, shocked businesses in the state. The lawyers said their clients saw manufacturing costs rise, particularly those that import steel and aluminum, and that the energy and aerospace industries were hit particularly hard.

“Texas lawyers are having to be extraordinarily agile,” Adetutu said.

Zive leads Bracewell’s 25-member policy resolution group that advises clients on tariff and international trade law policies. He said the firm has emphasized the tools it has to help clients sort through the chaos and that “this is why we’re here, obviously.“

Other Big Law firms including Holland & Knight also responded by marketing their tariff task forces to potential clients. Baker Botts undertook what it called the “head-spinning task” of tracking all the tariffs the Trump administration announced.

Ruling Preparation

Ahead of the Supreme Court decision, Adetutu has advised importers to complete documentation of all IEEPA tariffs they paid in case they are required to prove they are entitled to a refund.

Adetutu, who specializes in export controls, economic sanctions and national security reviews, also said she has told clients they could pursue a compliance review of their import processes “to ensure that their import classifications are correct.” That will help them “be prepared as the tariff landscape continues to change.”

Nelson & Mullins “strategically” sought to add lawyers to its existing customs, tariffs, and international trade practice to serve an uptick of “cross-border work” in both M&A and trade and tariff advice and guidance, Craig Dillard, managing partner at the firm’s Houston office, said in an email.

Akin’s Sikes said his advice to clients varies depending on their business models and risk tolerances. The Trump administration “has made clear” it will quickly implement a “Plan B” using other tariff tools if it receives an unfavorable ruling from the court, he said.

Trump has at least five fallback options distinct from the IEEPA case to impose tariffs. For example, the president has already increased steel and aluminum tariffs to 50% under national security provision Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

“Tariffs will continue to be a business consideration for clients to navigate in the years ahead,” Sikes said.