Austin, TX | North Carolina | Wyoming | Colorado
The Supreme Court has been productive this term, which is a polite way of saying it has been quietly dismantling assumptions that businesses have operated under for decades. By the time the last opinions arrive in late June, this term will have reshaped the legal landscape for tariff obligations, federal agency enforcement power, birthright citizenship, gender identity in the workplace, and professional liability litigation. If you run a business, manage human resources, or sign vendor contracts, at least three of those issues are already affecting your operations today. The other two are coming before summer.
Treaty Oak Employers’ Law Group represents employers from its office in Austin, Texas, with additional attorneys licensed in North Carolina, Wyoming, and Colorado. The firm watches this docket closely because its clients are the ones who absorb the downstream costs when the law changes and their contracts, HR policies, and litigation exposure have not caught up. Consider this the advance notice your general counsel probably has not sent yet.
The Tariff Case: The Presidency Overreached, and Your Supply Contracts Noticed
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The vote was 6–3. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented.
The court’s core holding is straightforward: the power to tax belongs to Congress (not the President) and the Framers recognized the power to tax to encompass the power to impose tariffs. The words “regulate” and “importation” in the IEEPA means to control, direct, or restrict importation; it does not mean the President should levy duties for indeterminate amounts of time in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The majority also applied the major questions doctrine, noting that Congress does not hide transformative delegations of taxing authority in ambiguous statutory language, and that no president had ever used the IEEPA to impose tariffs in the nearly fifty years since the statute was enacted in 1977.
The practical consequence for your business is this: the Liberation Day tariffs, the fentanyl trafficking tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, and an estimated $160 billion or more in import duties collected since early 2025 are now legally invalid. The administration responded within hours by imposing new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and it has launched trade investigations under Section 232 and Section 301, so the tariff environment remains volatile. The Trump administration seems intent on the imposition of tariffs to advance policy goals with the only thing changing between legal challenges being the justification for the imposition of tariffs despite lack of approval by Congress. The question of refunds on already collected duties is actively being litigated at the Court of International Trade, and the refund process has been described by the government itself as technically unmanageable at current volume.
Why this matters to employers.
If your business imports goods, or if any vendor in your supply chain does, the contracts you signed during 2025 almost certainly contemplate a tariff environment that no longer exists in the same form. Passthrough clauses, material adverse change provisions, and force majeure language are all now in play. Now is the time to revisit your vendor and procurement agreements to recognize the fluid nature of supply chains given the current tariff situation and to ensure your risks are mitigated as much as possible.
Businesses that absorbed IEEPA tariff costs may have standing to file refund claims at the Court of International Trade. The protest deadline for customs entries is approximately 16 months from importation, so the clock is running. More than 2,000 refund suits have already been filed.
The downstream litigation is only beginning. Years of commercial disputes over who absorbs tariff costs already embedded in contract prices, whether force majeure covers illegal government action, and how material adverse change language allocates risk in a now invalidated tariff regime are all in progress. Treaty Oak Employers’ Law Group will continue monitoring the situation so it can enable its clients to respond quickly to the ever changing supply chain challenges. The court said nothing about remedy for affected parties, which is exactly the kind of silence that generates a decade of commercial litigation.
Employers in manufacturing, retail, distribution, and any business reliant on imported inputs or goods should have counsel audit current vendor and procurement agreements for tariff exposure and refund eligibility. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automotive products remain in effect and are unaffected by this ruling.
The Agency Independence Case: The NLRB and EEOC Are in the Crosshairs
This is the one. Trump v. Slaughter was argued on December 8, 2025, and it is the pending case that will most directly reshape the daily employment law compliance environment for employers and businesses across the country.
At issue is whether the president can remove members of the Federal Trade Commission at will, potentially overturning the 1935 Supreme Court precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held that Congress could insulate independent agency commissioners from at-will presidential removal by requiring removal for cause.
The immediate subject is the FTC. The downstream stakes include the NLRB, the EEOC, the SEC, FERC, and potentially the Federal Reserve.
President Trump removed FTC Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in March 2025, explicitly without cause, citing policy disagreement. Every court to address the merits concluded that the removal violated the statute and the longstanding precedent of Humphrey’s Executor. The Supreme Court nonetheless stayed the lower court reinstatement order in September 2025, a procedural signal that typically indicates the court views the party seeking the stay as likely to prevail on the merits. Reporting from the December 8 oral argument described several justices as openly skeptical of whether Humphrey’s Executor remains workable given the modern FTC’s expanded enforcement authority.
Why this matters to employers.
This case is not just significant to parties who interact with the FTC. The NLRB and EEOC both operate under the same statutory framework that Humphrey’s Executor has protected for ninety years. If the Court narrows or overturns that framework, enforcement priorities could shift more rapidly with each administration.
What that means in practice: rules and rulings that took years to develop could be dismantled within months and remain ever fluid. For employers navigating recent NLRB positions on noncompete agreements, arbitration clauses, and social media policies, the instability cuts both ways. The effect? Confused employers who are unsure of what the current positions of NLRB and EEOC are on key issues (because the positions are constantly changing) leading to well-intentioned mistakes and increased legal fees to clean up the resulting mess from the lack of clear guidance.
A decision is expected by the end of June 2026. Whatever the outcome, the compliance landscape for NLRB and EEOC obligations will require reassessment.
The Birthright Citizenship Case: Workforce Planning Just Got Complicated
Oral arguments in Barbara v. Trump are scheduled for April 1, 2026. A ruling is expected by early July.
Every federal court to examine the merits has concluded the executive order is unconstitutional. The 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark has governed interpretation of the citizenship clause for more than a century.
Why this matters to employers.
If the executive order is upheld in any form (and categories of individuals previously treated as U.S. citizens were reclassified), employers who acted in good faith under prior laws could face retroactive exposure for improperly completed I-9s. Employers should be prepared for the administrative consequences of any change in citizenship documentation standards in an environment already defined by increased I-9 enforcement.
Additionally, businesses employing workers on temporary visas may face new documentation complexity affecting benefits, dependent eligibility, and reduced predictability in long-term workforce planning.
Now is also a good time to review onboarding certifications and compliance representations. The issue of reclassifying U.S. citizens also touches representations and warranties in employment agreements, independent contractor classification (especially where work authorization is relevant), and indemnification clauses in staffing agreements. Companies relying on third-party labor providers may even face heightened diligence obligations.
The Title IX Case: Your Workplace Gender Policies Are Watching the Scoreboard
West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. H/ecox were argued on January 13, 2026. A decision is expected in spring or early summer.
These cases are nominally about school sports. They are structurally about how federal law defines sex in the context of anti-discrimination laws. This has direct workplace consequences.
Why this matters to employers.
Bostock v. Clayton County remains controlling law. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.
Employers who roll back gender identity protections in anticipation of a favorable ruling would be making a legally premature and practically risky decision. The litigation exposure from a premature policy rollback is immediate. The ruling in B.P.J. is not.
Employers should expect a “context-specific” definition of sex. Courts have been increasingly signaling that “sex” includes gender identity in many contexts but that there may be narrow exceptions where biological distinctions are arguably relevant. Employers should assume the Bostock definition governs unless and until courts have clearly carved out employment-specific exceptions.
What should employers avoid doing? When faced with everchanging legal standards, employers often make the mistake of taking positions that expose them to liabilities. In this context, it could look like an employer attempting to implement policies that “track biology” such as defining “sex” in handbooks to be the sex at birth (don’t do that and audit your policies to make sure you aren’t doing that). It could also look like inconsistent treatment by a multi-state employer who is tempted to follow certain state law variations that lead to an EEOC investigation later (pay attention to the relevant Federal standards and don’t try to take shortcuts) . It could even look like an undertrained manager who insists on misgendering an employee and inconsistently enforcing policies against certain employees (there is some room for education here, at least at first).
The Malpractice Case: Texas Healthcare Employers Just Inherited a New Risk Landscape
On January 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in Berk v. Choy that state affidavit of merit requirements do not apply in federal court diversity actions.
What this means in plain language: plaintiffs can bypass certain state-level procedural barriers by filing in federal court.
For Texas employers, the implications under Chapter 74 are significant. The Court’s reasoning raises questions about whether presuit notice requirements tied to filing suit can be enforced in federal court.
The 9 to 0 vote is the tell. This was not a close question. Healthcare employers, hospitals, physician staffing agencies, therapy and rehabilitation facilities, and any professional services business that has relied on affidavit requirements or presuit notice statutes as a threshold filter on malpractice exposure in federal court should be reassessing risk and litigation strategy with counsel.
From a practical standpoint, business owners should anticipate the possibility of a federal lawsuit and not rely on state statutes that have been previously relied upon as a barrier to entry to federal court. This will have effects not only on how businesses structure their contracts but on how businesses develop action plans to mitigate risk when a conflict arises.
The Calendar: What Is Still Coming
Three of the five cases discussed here remain undecided as of this writing. Decisions are expected by June or July 2026.
The trade environment remains in flux. Refund litigation is developing, and administrative mechanisms remain uncertain.
Any employer who has not audited vendor contracts, reviewed HR policies, or reassessed litigation exposure should not wait for summer. These areas should be regularly audited to make sure an employer is positioning themself in the best way possible given the current legal environment.