This month we celebrate America’s semiquincentennial – the 250^th anniversary of the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. If you want to ace your next trivia night or stump your relatives this weekend, here is some July 4^th trivia:

• The Second Continental Congress actually voted in favor of independence on July 2, 1776. July 4^th is the day Congress formally adopted the text of the Declaration of Independence, and it was later printed with this date, which is why we continue to celebrate independence on July 4^th.
• July 4^th has not always been a happy occasion. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson – the second and third presidents of the United States and both signers of the Declaration – died on July 4, 1826, exactly 50 years to the date of the Declaration’s adoption. Although Jefferson died first, Adams was unaware and, on his deathbed later that day, famously said, “Thomas Jefferson still lives.”

 
To celebrate 250 years, you may be attending a fireworks display or even setting off your own. But these holiday fireworks aren’t the only ones happening. The Supreme Court officially ended its 2025-2026 Term on June 30^th, and it produced fireworks of its own. While this year’s term did not have as many significant cases for small businesses, the NFIB Legal Center continued its advocacy at the Court on behalf of Main Street. We participated in five cases this term, with a summary of each below.

 
NFIB Cases

Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel: At issue in this case was whether the statutory 30-day time limit for a defendant to move a case from state to federal court could be extended. NFIB joined an amicus brief arguing that extensions should be granted in limited circumstances to prevent harm to the rights of business defendants and eliminate the opportunity for procedural gamesmanship by states and plaintiffs, as the State of Michigan did in this case. The Supreme Court held that the statute does not permit extensions.

Pung v. Isabella County: This case asked how much money governments must return to a property owner when the government seizes and sells the owner’s property to satisfy a tax debt. NFIB’s amicus brief argued that a property owner is entitled to the difference between the property’s fair market value and the amount of taxes owed. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that governments must pay the surplus from the sale, meaning the difference between what the property was sold for, even if below fair market value, and the amount of taxes owed.

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock: The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) exempts certain workers from arbitration if they are “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” NFIB joined an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to read the exemption narrowly to include only workers whose job is directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders. The Supreme Court extended the exemption to include workers who sell and distribute goods purely within one state, even though these workers never cross state lines nor interact with vehicles or shipments that do.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC: NFIB an amicus brief claiming that the Federal Aviation Administrative Authorization Act (FAAAA) prevents state tort suits against freight brokers for negligent hiring of a motor carrier, and that allowing state lawsuits would impose drastic costs on the shipping industry. The Supreme Court read the statute differently, permitting a patchwork of state-court laws to regulate the nationwide shipping industry instead of a uniform standard.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. AT&T and Verizon v. FCC: These consolidated cases concerned whether the FCC’s enforcement and forfeiture proceedings require a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment when the FCC seeks to impose penalties. NFIB’s amicus brief argued that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial, but the Supreme Court held the FCC’s enforcement and forfeiture proceedings proper.

 
Non-NFIB Cases:

Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, striking down certain tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration.

Trump v. Slaughter: For-cause removal provisions for Federal Trade Commission commissioners violate the constitutional separation of powers by preventing the President from carrying out the full executive power and ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed.

Trump v. Barbara: President Trump’s Executive Order on birthright citizenship falls—children born in the U.S. to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the 14^th Amendment.

Wolford v. Lopez: States cannot require concealed carry permit holders to obtain a private property owner’s express and affirmative consent before the permit holder is allowed to carry their handgun.

For more information on these cases or the NFIB Legal Center’s Supreme Court advocacy, contact us at info@nfib.org.

Last updated July 1, 2026