A Vermont Cycling Apparel Company Fights Trump’s Tariffs as Supreme Court Weighs Case
Small Businesses Join High-Stakes Challenge Over Presidential Trade Powers
When former President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every country, Nik Holm feared the business he leads might not survive. Terry Precision Cycling, a Vermont-based maker of women’s cycling apparel, had weathered four decades of economic ups and downs — but tariffs threatened to be the final blow.
“We felt like our backs were up against the wall,” Holm said. “We had to fight.”
The company, headquartered behind a Burlington coffee shop, is now at the center of a Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. The outcome could reshape the limits of presidential authority over trade — and determine the future of small businesses like Terry’s.
A Local Company in a Global Crossfire
Terry Precision Cycling’s products rely on a global supply chain: shorts made in the U.S. with materials from France and Guatemala, and jerseys crafted from Chinese fabrics. When Trump’s tariffs hit, the company saw costs spike overnight. One pair of shorts rose by $50, pushing the retail price to $199.
“If we don’t know the rules of the game, how are we supposed to play?” Holm said, describing the volatile pricing environment created by shifting tariff rates — some as high as 145% on Chinese imports.
With limited cash reserves, Terry Precision Cycling had little choice but to raise prices and hope loyal customers would absorb the increase. The uncertainty, Holm said, made long-term planning nearly impossible.
Taking the Fight to Washington
Holm joined a coalition of small businesses — including a wine importer from New York, a plumbing supply company in Utah, and a fishing-tackle maker in Pennsylvania — to challenge the legality of Trump’s tariffs. The Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian-leaning legal group, represents them.
The plaintiffs argue that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law designed for sanctions, not tariffs. They say the move allows presidents to impose taxes unilaterally, bypassing Congress — the very issue the American Revolution sought to prevent.
“Taxation without representation is still a problem,” said Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney with the group.
Trump’s Expansive Defense
Trump has defended the tariffs as vital to national security and economic leverage. He has called the case “one of the most important in the history of our country” and suggested he might even attend the Supreme Court arguments — an unprecedented move for a sitting or former president.
His administration maintains that emergency powers give the president broad authority over imports, especially in matters of foreign policy. Critics say that interpretation could open the door to unchecked executive control of trade, taxes, and beyond.
Billions — and Jobs — on the Line
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Trump’s tariffs could collect as much as $3 trillion from businesses over the next decade. The Yale Budget Lab estimates the policy has already added about $2,000 in costs per U.S. household this year. If the Supreme Court overturns the tariffs, the government may have to refund billions in collected duties.
“We’re not against fair trade,” Holm said. “But small businesses shouldn’t be collateral damage in a global power struggle.”
Beyond the Courtroom
For Holm, the lawsuit isn’t about politics — it’s about survival. Terry Precision Cycling employs about 20 people and caters to women who ride for fitness and freedom. The company’s designs, rooted in comfort and performance, have earned a loyal following among cyclists nationwide.
“It’s about keeping that joy accessible,” Holm said. “If our gear becomes unaffordable, fewer people can experience the freedom of a bike ride.”
