Ownership in the Supreme Court

There is a vast difference between yard sales and retail sales.
If you buy a book and wish to resell it, certainly you may,
and the court's decision in this case will have no bearing on that sort of thing.
If you buy a crate of books and sell them on ebay,
that's an entirely different matter.

Some similar situtations that might clear things up-
One, cigarettes purchased on tribal lands are exempt from taxes.
Cigarettes purchased on tribal lands and resold beyond tribal lands
are NOT exempt from taxes.

Two, sewing patterns (and most fabrics) are copyrighted and licensed
for personal use. I can make a garment and resell it
without violating those licenses;
I cannot make garments for the purpose of selling them
without violating that license.

Three, I don't know of anywhere in the US where you cannot legally
sell your car... however, there are very few places in the US
where you can purchase and sell more than a very small number of cars
in a year without a license of some sort.

(Realizing now that this became a rather long reply. The TL;DR version is that the examples you gave are not valid analogies as none of them are First Sale Doctrine cases)

If the court rules that the first sale doctrine does not apply on items of foreign origin (what is being argued by the publishers) then yes, our right to resell items will be at risk. Do you know which things you own were manufactured wholly in the US and which weren't? And for items that are not a single piece, what happens if they are mixed source (say the text block of a book was printed overseas, but the covers were printed in the US)? Further, can you prove it?

If you purchase cigarettes on tribal lands where they are not taxed, and then resell them in a nearby city not on tribal lands... That has nothing to do with this case. When the local city, county, or state takes you to court they will not utter one word about the first sale doctrine. And if you base your defense on the first sale doctrine they'll laugh all they way to your guilty verdict. That is because you will be prosecuted for tax evasion.

If you buy a sewing pattern, and make multiple sets of clothing based on them to sell... You are doing something completely different from this case. To make it the same you would need to be purchasing multiple copies of the patterns and then selling the patterns not clothes made from the patterns. What the publishers are arguing here is that if you buy even a single pattern in India, or Mexico, or Canada, never even open the packaging it came in, and decide to sell it in the US they should be allowed to deny you the right to sell it because it is of foreign origin.

Your third example with the car again misses the point of this case. When the city comes after you for selling several cars they will never once utter a word about the first sale doctrine. And as with the cigarette example above if you try to base your defense on it they will once again cheerfully laugh as you fight your way to defeat. Because the city or state will would be going after you for failure to obtain a business license and failure to collect the taxes on the sales. And, if you do get the license and pay the taxes the city/state/county won't be upset with you.

To make the car example fit you would have to have to purchase outside the US then resell in the US. This would be complicated, but the complication would be due to import taxes, differences in emissions requirements in other countries, etc. Not the first sale doctrine.

What the publishers are arguing here isn't about business licenses, or taxes. The publishers are arguing that if it originated outside the US then you should have no right to resell it.

Now, for an example that is similar to this case. There used to be a store nearby that specialized in classic, foreign, and hard to find sodas. They had Australian root beers, Japanese Remune, and the one this example is about: bottled Dr. Pepper from Texas made with cane sugar instead of corn syrup. Was Arizona outside that bottler's sales region? Yes. Did the Dr Pepper Snapple Group sue the store for daring to sell a soda that was intended for sale in a region outside Arizona? No.

What happened is that the Dr Pepper Snapple Group went to the bottler and said, "so many people are selling this, in such quantities, outside your contractual sales region that we are forced to believe that you are knowingly shipping outside your region." They then sued the bottler and took over the company.

Note they didn't sue the store in Arizona, they sued they bottler in Texas. Note they didn't argue over the first sale doctrine, they sued over breach of contract. That is because under the first sale doctrine the store had every right to sell it once it bought it.

The publishers here aren't claiming a breech of contract on the students part. And they aren't arguing before the US Supreme Court that whoever sold the books in India broke a contract (they might well have a completely separate case in India, assuming they have contracts with the store not to sell outside a set region). What they are arguing here is that the first sale doctrine should only apply to products that originated in the US.

yeah, my comparisons were far from exact, I'll grant you...