Learning Resources v. Trump

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 9 Sep 2025

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. ("IEEPA") permits the President, upon a valid emergency declaration, to "investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest[.]" Id. § l 702(a)(1)(B). Until now, no President in IEEPA's nearly 50-year history has ever invoked it to impose tariffs-let alone the sweeping worldwide tariffs imposed pursuant to the executive orders challenged here. The question presented is: Whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose tariffs.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The case arose after President Trump used IEEPA to impose tariffs tied to drug trafficking and trade deficits. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect duties, and the statute does not mention tariffs or duties. The Court said the phrase to “regulate . . . importation” does not include the power to tax, and that Congress normally speaks clearly when it delegates tariff power. The Court also relied on the major questions doctrine, saying the President claimed an extraordinary power of major economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. The judgment in one case was vacated and remanded for lack of jurisdiction, and the other was affirmed.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the statute and the Constitution permit Congress to delegate the power to impose duties on imports, and that IEEPA’s language authorizes the tariffs. Justice Kavanaugh also dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. He argued that statutory text, history, and precedent show that “regulate . . . importation” has long been understood to include tariffs, so the President acted within the authority Congress gave in IEEPA.