Features

Affordable postage and tariffs remain top concerns for greeting card publishers. Two questions determine if favorable outcomes are possible as 2025 slips into 2026. First, will the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) act to limit the rate increase authority of the United States Postal Service (USPS) as part of its review of rates? And secondly, will the Supreme Court act to block President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs?

Regarding the first, recent information suggests that the PRC will indeed examine the USPS’ rate authority. Recently, the Greeting Card Association (GCA) joined colleagues from Keep US Posted in a meeting with PRC Vice-Chairman Robert Taub. Taub believes the commission will look at USPS rate increase levels. He is clearly troubled by USPS management’s characterization of the PRC as an unnecessary impediment and believes that, contrary to its pledges, the USPS has not been judicious in exercising the additional rate authority the commission granted in 2020.

Taub was appreciative of the efforts GCA has made to secure additional power and clarity for the PRC through the USPS SERVES US Act. GCA has prepared comments to urge that the additional rate authority be rescinded and the price cap for stamps set in accordance with the consumer price index (CPI). It now appears the commission will set up a proceeding to consider them.

The second question is more complicated. The Supreme Court heard arguments on sustaining a lower-court decision that found the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA are illegal. Coming out of the court, both sides engaged in wish casting in terms of what the justices will decide, but most media concluded the odds favor the tariff opponents. The decision will likely come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom have proven willing to go against the Trump administration despite having been appointed by Republicans. The bigger issue is what will happen even if a favorable decision is reached.

It is possible the court could split the difference and allow the tariffs imposed to respond to the fentanyl crisis to continue while blocking the reciprocal tariffs. Then there is the question of if the court will provide clarity on how to refund tariffs if it finds they were improperly imposed. Even the small business advocate admitted that this will be difficult. Finally, the administration has indicated it has a “Plan B” to maintain tariffs through other provisions of law by increasing the use of Section 301 and 232 tariffs, and other authorities that would allow for tariffs up to 50% for a limited duration. Hopefully, we will have answers to these questions before the end of the year, but it is likely GCA will need to engage on the refund issue or seek a formal exemption process if any of the tariffs are allowed.