Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

Last updated

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 5, 2025
Decided February 20, 2026
Full case nameLearning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
Donald J. Trump, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Docket nos. 24-1287
25-250
Citations607 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Questions presented
  1. Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Pub. L. No. 95-223, Tit. II, 91 Stat. 1626, authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Trump pursuant to the national emergencies declared or continued in Proclamation 10,886 and Executive Orders 14,157, 14,193, 14,194, 14,195, and 14,257, as amended.
  2. If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the President.
Holding
IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. V.O.S. Selections affirmed; Learning Resources vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts (parts I, II–A–1, and II–B), joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson
PluralityRoberts (parts II–A–2 and III), joined by Gorsuch, Barrett
ConcurrenceGorsuch
ConcurrenceBarrett
ConcurrenceKagan (in part and in judgment), joined by Sotomayor, Jackson
ConcurrenceJackson (in part and in judgment)
DissentThomas
DissentKavanaugh, joined by Thomas, Alito
Laws applied
International Emergency Economic Powers Act

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), an economic sanctions law, does not authorize the president to unilaterally set tariffs, vacating many of the tariffs implemented during the second Trump administration.

Contents

In February 2025, President Donald Trump announced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and separately on China, citing the IEEPA as the statutory authority for doing so. After implementing other tariffs citing different statutory authorities, Trump announced the global Liberation Day tariffs also citing the IEEPA the following April. Multiple lawsuits from affected companies and U.S. states were filed shortly after this announcement, including both Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., challenging the president's authority to issue tariffs under IEEPA.

In Learning Resources, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the tariffs were unconstitutional in May 2025. In Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in May 2025 that the president does not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs in this way, and permanently enjoined the government from enforcing them. The CIT's ruling was upheld on appeal by the en banc Federal Circuit Appeals Court in August 2025. In both cases, the lower courts stayed their injunctions to allow Trump to appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court granted both petitions in September and consolidated them into a single case. The Court expedited scheduling of oral arguments, which were heard on November 5, 2025. Court observers believed a majority of the justices expressed skepticism towards the government's rationale for the tariffs during the oral session. In its opinion of February 20, 2026, the Court decided that this matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade, so ordered the District of Columbia court case dismissed. The Court affirmed the V.O.S. Selections rulings against the tariffs.

Background

Trump displaying the chart detailing tariffs levied against the United States and retaliatory tariffs ("Liberation Day tariffs") that he would issue in return. Trump showing a chart with reciprocal tariffs (cropped).jpg
Trump displaying the chart detailing tariffs levied against the United States and retaliatory tariffs ("Liberation Day tariffs") that he would issue in return.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump stated his intent to place heavy tariffs on China while applying tariffs to most other imports, asserting these were needed to have countries improve their efforts to stop illegal drugs like fentanyl into the US, as well as to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants. [1] Trump likened the need for tariffs to recreate the successes of the Gilded Age in the late 19th century under William McKinley. [2]

Trump enacted executive orders 14193, 14194, and 14195 on February 2, 2025, for tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, respectively, citing his ability to do so under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). [3] On April 2, 2025, Trump announced further "Liberation Day" tariffs on many countries and products as part of Executive Order 14257 asserting his authority to do so under the IEEPA. [4] Trump argued that there were numerous trade deficits that were unfair to the United States and threaten national security, and declared an economic emergency to justify the use of the IEEPA to correct them. Under the new tariff plan, nearly all incoming goods were set to a 10% tariff, with about sixty additional countries set at higher tariff rates. Further, Trump stated his intent to use "reciprocal tariffs" calculated based on countries' trade surpluses with the United States. [5] [6] Trump had pushed for tariffs alongside his "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by Congress in July 2025 which significantly cut government revenue from taxes but with more government spending, with the tariffs intended to make up the difference. [7] The Trump administration has also said the tariffs would help deal with the $37 trillion federal debt, and allows a point of leverage in foreign relations. [8] [9] The tariffs did not come into effect until July 2025, during which the Trump administration secured trade agreements with some countries including Japan and the European Union, reducing the tariff rate applied in exchange for either investments into the US or importing more US goods. [10]

The tariff plan was met with harsh criticism from multiple sectors. World leaders from multiple countries urged Trump to back off the tariff plan, with the European Union's president Ursula von der Leyen saying they would be a "major blow to the world economy". [11] Economic experts also were critical of the tariff plan with concerns on the flawed calculations used to justify the tariff rates. [12] Business lobbying groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable sought relief from the Trump administration to lessen the impact of the tariffs on businesses. [13] Small businesses were hardest hit by the tariffs; compared to large companies that had sufficient on-hand capital to stock up on imports prior to enforcement of the tariffs, many small businesses had little leeway to prepare, and many had to cut back on profit and plans for expansion due to the tariffs. [14]

Lower court history

Multiple lawsuits were filed in wake of Trump's Liberation Day tariff announcement, but the V.O.S. Selections was one of the first filed and had progressed the farthest; [13] James Fanelli of The Wall Street Journal said "Other challenges have been filed in the court and in federal district courts around the country, but the V.O.S. case is front and center so far." [15] In addition to Learning Resources and V.O.S. Selections, there were other similar lawsuits. In April 2025, twelve US states led by Oregon filed a similar suit in the Court of International Trade, arguing that Trump did not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs. [16] The states' case was consolidated with that of the V.O.S. Selections' case. [15]

These cases do not challenge another route for the president to set tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows the president to establish tariffs in the interest of national security. Trump has used this during his second administration to set tariffs on aluminum and steel imports, among other goods. [17]

Learning Resources v. Trump

On April 22, 2025, Learning Resources and Hand2mind, two family-owned educational toy manufacturers, sued Trump in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. [18] In an interview with CBS News, Learning Resources' chief executive, Rick Woldenberg, argued that Trump's tariffs would negatively affect his business and the US economy, [19] citing that their costs to tariffs had risen by a 44-fold increase. [18]

A coalition of experts filed an amici curiae brief in support of the plaintiff for Learning Resources, in addition to a similar one for V.O.S. Selections, stating "The powers to tax, to regulate commerce, and to shape the nation's economic course must remain with Congress. They cannot drift silently into the hands of the President through inertia, inattention, or creative readings of statutes never meant to grant such authority. That conviction is not partisan. It is constitutional. And it strikes at the heart of this case." [20] [21] The brief, co-authored by Michael W. McConnell and Joshua Claybourn, brought together "big-name constitutional law scholars across the political spectrum" according to Reason , and included legal scholars Steven Calabresi, Harold Koh, Richard Epstein, Michael W. McConnell, and Gerard Magliocca, and former government officials Michael Mukasey, George Allen, and Chuck Hagel. [20] The filing, dubbed the McConnell/Claybourn brief, [22] was cited by Vox as one of the plaintiffs' two significant advantages, noting that co-signer John Danforth is a mentor to Justice Clarence Thomas and gave Thomas his first job out of law school. [23] According to Adam Liptak of The New York Times , the amici brief was considered instrumental in the case's proceedings. [24] McConnell would later transition to serve as counsel to the plaintiffs in V.O.S. Selections. [25]

Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled on May 29, 2025, that Trump's tariffs were unlawful, but limited his order to the plaintiffs and delayed it until an appeal could be heard. [26] Trump appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by June 3, leading judge Contreras to extend the stay on his order while the case was litigated there. [18]

While the case progressed in the appeals court, Learning Resources filed for a motion to expedite directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the appeals court, along with a writ of certiorari on June 18, 2025. [27] The Supreme Court rejected the expedited request two days later without comment. [28] In July, solicitor general D. John Sauer argued that the justices "should not leapfrog" the proceedings in the appeals court. [29]

V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump

Court of International Trade

In V.O.S. Selections, the plaintiffs, consisting of five small businesses which were facing potential bankruptcy due to the tariffs, filed suit against the government on April 14, 2025, in the United States Court of International Trade, a judicial venue for civil actions related to the government's trade regulations. The businesses were represented by the Liberty Justice Center and Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. [30] [31] [32] The plaintiffs argued that the administration had improperly used the IEEPA to impose tariffs that were not authorized by that law. [33] Somin said that while the IEEPA had previously been used by other presidents in sanctions against other countries or to freeze assets of foreign terrorists, no previous president used the law to simply set tariff rate, and that Trump's imposition of the tariffs was "an enormous abuse of power, and it still needs to be stopped". [33] [34] Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center said: [35]

Our system is not set up so that one person in the system can have the power to impose taxes across the world economy. That’s not how our constitutional republic works...

The Court denied a motion for a temporary restraining order on April 25, 2025, but ordered the Trump administration to respond to the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment. The Court set a briefing schedule and hearing to rule on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the Liberation Day tariffs. [15]

The three judge panel, consisting of judges Timothy Reif (a Trump appointment), Gary Katzmann (an Obama appointment), and Jane Restani (a Reagan appointee), heard the case on May 13, 2025. [36] [37] [38] Plaintiffs were represented by Jeffrey M. Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center, while Eric J. Hamilton of the US Department of Justice defended the government's position. [39] [40]

The Trump administration argued that federal courts upheld use of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, to which the IEEPA was an amendment, by the Nixon administration in response to the economic impact from the ending of the Bretton Woods system in August 1971. [41]

The three-judge panel granted plaintiffs summary judgment on May 28, 2025, permanently enjoining the government from enforcing the tariffs. The court ruled that the IEEPA does not delegate power from Congress to the president to create tariffs in this way. [42] The panel's opinion explained its ruling that while the president may at times of emergency be given limited powers within the statute to set tariffs, this does not grant the office the "unlimited tariff authority" that Trump had claimed the IEEPA granted, nor could the Congress delegate such unlimited power under the Constitution. [43]

The opinion stated that Congress could only delegate tariff powers to the president if that delegation includes "an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such [tariff] rates is directed to conform"; if the IEEPA was intended to give the president broad tariff powers, then the court would have found the IEEPA unconstitutional as it lacked any specific conditions and limitations for that delegation. [43]

A second factor stated by the opinion is that the president's power to set tariffs to address trade deficits is circumscribed under the Trade Act of 1974, but only at a maximum rate of 15% and for a maximum of 150 days. [43] A third point raised by the opinion countered the rationale given by Trump to fight the "unusual and extraordinary threat" of illegal drug trade into the US, and held that none of the tariffs issued by Trump did anything to stop drugs from entering the US, and rejected Trump's argument that other nations would be incentivized to stop drug trade to the US to remove the tariffs. [43]

Federal Circuit Appeals Court

The Trump administration appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and requested a stay of the permanent injunction. [44] The circuit court granted the government's motion to stay, while also ordering an expedited en banc hearing on the substantive issues in the case on July 31, 2025, with additional briefings on the merits. [45]

At the hearing on July 31, journalists observed that some of the judges seemed skeptical of the arguments advanced by the administration's lawyers. [46] [47] D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General, filed an additional submission with the court after the hearing, stating that if the tariffs were overturned, the result would be an economic depression on par with the 1929 depression, jeopardizing social programs such as Social Security and Medicare and requiring the federal government to repay trillions of dollars to foreign countries. [48] [49]

On August 29, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment of the Court of International Trade in a per curiam opinion ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority under the IEEPA, that establishing tariffs was a power controlled only by Congress, and that the president's approach raised issues under the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine. [50] In its reasons, the per curiam opinion stated that: "...the President has departed from the established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade." [51]

While a per curiam decision, four out of the eleven judges on the court joined in dissent, with judge Richard G. Taranto writing the dissenting opinion joined by chief judge Kimberly Moore and judges Sharon Prost and Raymond Chen. Taranto said "IEEPA embodies an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm, which unsurprisingly extends beyond authorities available under non-emergency laws, and Congress confirmed the understood breadth by tying IEEPA’s authority to particularly demanding procedural requirements for keeping Congress informed." [50] [52]

The ruling invalidated the executive orders establishing the tariffs against Canada and Mexico as well as the Liberation Day tariffs, but did not involve tariffs on steel, copper, and aluminum that were placed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The case was remanded to the Court of International Trade to determine remedies. [52] The appeals court imposed a stay of execution through October 14 to allow the administration to appeal to the US Supreme Court. [53] [41] Trump argued on social media that the ruling, if allowed to stand, "would literally destroy the United States of America" and vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court to reverse. [6]

US Supreme Court

Within a week of the en banc Federal Circuit decision from V.O.S. Selections, the administration formally requested an expedited ruling from the Supreme Court. [54] [55] The Court accepted the case on September 9, 2025, consolidating it with the pending petition from Learning Resources. The case was later scheduled to be heard November 5, 2025. [56] [57] Ahead of the oral hearings, analysts said this case was one of the first major tests at the Supreme Court on the limits of Trump's claims of executive power during his second term; the court had previous issued orders from the emergency docket favorable to Trump, but the tariff case brings in issues related to the principles of non-delegation and the major questions doctrine which conservative justices have written in favor of in prior cases. [58]

The small businesses challenging the tariffs said in their filings that the tariffs are unconstitutional as the word "tariff" does not appear at all in the IEEPA, nor does any other congressional statute that gives the executive the power to regulate importation the ability to impose taxes, in addition to addressing the major questions doctrine and non-delegation principles. The Trump administration argued in their filings that the language of IEEPA "plainly" gives the president the ability to set tariffs as a means of regulating imports. The administration also argued that, counter to the Federal Circuit court's finding, that tariff powers given to the president under IEEPA are not unlimited, with tariffs limited to a maximum of one year and overridable through Congress. Further, the administration argued that the major question doctrine should not apply to matters of foreign affairs and national security. [59]

Amicus briefs

Merits briefs were filed by 44 groups of amici curiae: 37 in support of the challengers, 6 in support of the government, and 1 in support of neither. [60] The case drew fewer amicus briefs than other recent high-profile cases—and most sided with the challengers rather than the government. Many of the briefs opposing the Trump administration came from conservative groups, an unusual state according to SCOTUSblog . [61]

The Washington Post's George Will identified six amicus briefs that emphasized the separation-of-powers concerns and question whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose broad revenue-raising tariffs without clear congressional direction. [62] The Goldwater Institute argues that whether an "emergency" exists under IEEPA is a justiciable question and that chronic trade imbalances and drug trafficking do not qualify as the kind of "sudden, unforeseen, extraordinary" emergencies that justify extraordinary powers; it also urges a clear-statement rule for delegations of taxing power. [62] [63] The Brennan Center for Justice contends that IEEPA was crafted to provide only a "temporary boost" in crisis, not a backdoor to unreviewable, open-ended tariff authority; it maintains that if Congress can address a condition through ordinary legislation, the condition is not an "emergency." [62] [64] A coalition of economists asserts that, even assuming IEEPA permitted tariffs, such tariffs are unlikely to "deal with" trade deficits as the statute requires; over the last half-century, deficits have been common among many nations and the net effects of tariffs on trade balances are typically small. [62] [65]

Most of the same bipartisan group of legal scholars and former officials that had signed onto the McConnell/Claybourn brief used in the lower rulings, argued in their amicus brief that Congress never intended IEEPA to serve as a "backdoor" for executive taxation or large-scale economic restructuring, noting that the statute authorizes several specific actions but never mentions taxes or tariffs. [62] [66] The Institute for Policy Integrity (NYU School of Law) focuses on the major-questions doctrine, arguing that the asserted IEEPA tariff power is “unheralded,” “transformative,” and of vast economic and political significance, and therefore cannot be inferred absent a clear statement from Congress. [62] [67] Cato Institute researchers dispute the administration’s policy justifications, noting that since IEEPA’s enactment in 1977 the United States has negotiated numerous trade agreements without resort to IEEPA-based tariffs and that claimed diplomatic necessity does not supply missing statutory authority. [62] [68]

Oral hearings

Michael W. McConnell and Neal Katyal represented the businesses in V.O.S. Selections, Pratik Shah represented those in Learning Resources, [69] Katyal delivered the oral argument for all of the private businesses, and Oregon Solicitor General Ben Gutman argued for the US state parties. [70] Sauer presented the US government's case. [71]

Trump had previously stated that he may attend the oral arguments, which would make him the first incumbent president to ever attend oral arguments before the Supreme Court, [72] but in the days ahead, said he would not attend, stating "I just don't want to do anything to deflect the importance of that decision. It's not about me, it's about our country." [73]

Journalists hearing the oral arguments said it appeared likely that the tariffs would be ruled unconstitutional, with both conservative and liberal justices questioning whether IEEPA allowed for the president to set tariffs. Both Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett raised questions on the non-delegation principle, with Gorsuch saying it would be a "one way ratchet" of Congressional power to the president if the tariffs were upheld. [74] Both Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas had said that the Court may be treading on presidential power by overruling his tariffs. [75]

Decision

The Supreme Court released its decision on February 20, 2026. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, stated that the IEEPA does not give the president the power to set tariffs. In the case of Learning Resources, the D.C. District Court's decision was vacated and remanded to be closed due to a lack of jurisdiction, while for V.O.S. Selections, the lower court decision was upheld. [76] [77] The ruling, one of the few issued by the Supreme Court to date to rule against Trump's presidency, was considered a landmark decision by multiple media outlets. [78] [76]

Majority opinion and concurrences

Roberts' opinion, joined by the five other justices, found that the IEEPA's language did not give tariff power to the president. Roberts wrote "Based on two words separated by 16 others in […] IEEPA—'regulate' and 'importation'—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.[…] IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties." Moreover, “until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power." [79] Roberts stated the imposed tariffs were not supported by the language of the IEEPA. Roberts wrote "the president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope", the government "points to no statute" where Congress expressly said IEEPA could apply to tariffs. [79] [80] Roberts further reasoned that, were "regulate" interpreted to include taxation, that interpretation "would render IEEPA partly unconstitutional", as the law also allows the president to regulate "exportation", where the taxation of exports is unconstitutional per the Export Clause. [81] [79]

A plurality of Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett agreed that the tariffs under IEEPA failed the major questions doctrine. Roberts wrote "When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits." [79] Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, further criticized Congress for letting Trump dictate tariffs, rather than legislatively enacting them, and emphasized the need for the non-delegation doctrine. [82] [83] Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, disagreed that the major questions doctrine was needed to invalidate the tariffs, only ordinary reading of the IEEPA language. Kagan stated that by asserting the major questions doctrine, the plurality was putting its "thumb on the scale" to reach the same result. [83]

Dissents

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh wrote separate dissents, with Thomas and Samuel Alito also joining Kavanaugh's dissent. Thomas stated that Trump's tariffs were valid under historical application of tariff power. [83] Kavanaugh's lengthy dissent stated that tariffs "are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation" and that because there were numerous other ways that the president could set tariffs by federal statute, those other routes "might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case", outlining several of those routes in his dissent. [79] Kavanaugh also asserted that the tariffs had aided Trump's foreign policy as they "helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars — including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, and more." [84]

The decision only addressed the legality of tariffs collected via IEEPA sanctions and did not address how the tariffs already collected should be repaid, though Kavanaugh warned in his dissent that repayment could have a significant impact on the US treasury. [80]

Aftermath

The impact of the ruling against the tariffs was unclear, as it would threaten the basis of the trade deals made with other countries, and there could be extensive litigation from companies seeking recovery of the tariffs they had paid the government since the onset of the tariffs. [10] The fate of the estimated $90 billion in tariffs collected by September 2025 was also unclear with the Court's ruling, whether some or all of the tariffs would be repaid to importers. [85] At least one scholar noted in Lawfare that "[c]ourts have long recognized that when duties or tariffs are later invalidated, the government cannot lawfully retain those amounts." [86] The Congressional Research Service reported that the Treasury Department would be required to pay back unliqidated duties from the IEEPA tariffs, while liquidated duty would require legal actions to recover. [87] The Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent has previously testified to Congress in September 2025 that invalidation of tariffs would require refunds, [88] though in wake of the decision, implied that if tariffs were to be refunded, it would be up the lower courts on remand and not the Treasury to decide how they would be paid. [89] Bloomberg News reported that by the end of February 2026, over 2000 lawsuits had been filed by many companies prior and after the decision to recover the tariffs that were collected. [90]

Political responses

The court's ruling brought in mixed reactions across the political spectrum. [91] Democratic politicians supported the ruling, including Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer. [92] Republican politicians including Mike Pence, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell praised the ruling. [93] House Speaker Mike Johnson gave a mixed reaction, [93] while Bernie Moreno criticized the ruling and called on Congress to "codify the tariffs". [92] Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called the decision "unfortunate", [94] while Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the majority ruling "wrong" and praised Thomas's dissent. [95] Canadian businessman Kevin O'Leary described the ruling as a "nightmare". [91] International reactions to the ruling were broadly positive, including from politicians from France, Germany, and China. [96]

Alternate tariffs

Prior to the ruling, the Trump administration had said that if the IEEPA route is struck down by the Supreme Court, they will implement tariffs through other methods that are explicitly granted to the president via congressional acts. One route includes Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows the president to set tariffs on imports of specific goods in the matter of national security (which Trump had already used in his second term for steel and aluminum imports), while another is through Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs to be applied if the rights of the US are being impacted by a foreign power in an existing trade pact. Both require the Commerce Department to make an assessment of the need for the tariffs before they can be applied, and have shorter allowed durations compared to the actions the administration had claimed were allowed under IEEPA. [97] [98]

Trump complained about the ruling, calling out the three conservative justices that were part of the majority (Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett) as "disloyal, unpatriotic", and claimed they were RINOs, [99] while praising Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas, thanking them "for their strength and wisdom and love of our country". [100] By the day after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump had promised to set new global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to the maximum 15% allowed, after initially calling for a 10% tariff hours after the ruling. These tariffs later came into effect on 24 February at a rate of 10%. Section 122 allows for the president to set such universal tariffs, limited to 150 days and require congressional approval for extension, to deal with serious balance-of-payments deficits, as had occurred under the Nixon shock. [101] [102] [103] In most cases, the 10% tariffs were a significant reduction of the tariffs placed by those placed under IEEPA, particularly with Canada, Mexico, China, and most European Union countries. [104] Multiple legal and economic experts, including Andrew McCarthy, a conservative legal commentator and Ilya Somin a law professor and one of the lawyers in V.O.S. Selections argue that these Trade Act tariffs are also illegal because the balance-of-payments deficit required by Section 122 does not exist, in part because the U.S. exports services over goods, nor does the U.S. adhere to the gold standard since the passage of the Trade Act. [105] [106] [98]

The Supreme Court decision, while not directly addressing it, also appeared to invalidate the national emergency rationale that Trump had used to eliminate the de minimis exemption for imports valued under $800 in May and July 2025, claiming this exemption allowed fentanyl and other drugs to readily flow into the country. This change primarily affected Chinese importers like Temu and Shein. Trump issued a second executive order on the day of the Learning Resources decision reiterating that the de minimis exemption would remain in place indefinitely. [107]

References

Sources

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Ibssa, Lalee; Walsh, Kelsey; Rin Kim, Soo (November 25, 2024). "Trump says he'll slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico on Day 1". ABC News . Retrieved November 4, 2025.
  2. ↑ Weissart, Will (March 10, 2025). "Trump has touted Gilded Age tariffs, an era which saw industrial growth together with poverty". Associated Press . Retrieved November 4, 2025– via PBS.
  3. ↑ Shalal, Andrea; Renshaw, Jarrett; Lawder, David (February 1, 2025). "Trump launches trade war with tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China". Reuters . Retrieved November 4, 2025.
  4. ↑ Willmer, Sabrina (April 14, 2025). "Trump's Tariff Rationale Challenged in Suit by Small Firms". bloomberg.com. Retrieved April 18, 2025.
  5. ↑ Mena, Bryan (April 2, 2025). "Key takeaways from Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs". CNN . Retrieved August 30, 2025.
  6. 1 2 Chisholm, Johanna (August 30, 2025). "What happens next after Trump tariffs ruled illegal?". BBC News . Retrieved August 30, 2025.
  7. ↑ Mangan, Dan (August 19, 2025). "Trump tariff revenue expected to offset tax bill impact, S&P says in U.S. credit rating hold". CNBC . Retrieved August 30, 2025.
  8. ↑ Romm, Tony; Swanson, Ana (September 10, 2025). "Trump's Economic Agenda Hinges on the Supreme Court's Tariff Ruling". The New York Times . Retrieved October 19, 2025.
  9. ↑ Price, Michelle (November 2, 2025). "Tariffs are Trump's favorite foreign policy tool. The Supreme Court could change how he uses them". Associated Press News . Retrieved November 2, 2025.
  10. 1 2 Ma, Jason (August 29, 2025). "Trump's reciprocal tariffs are struck down by federal appeals court, putting trade deals and huge revenue windfall at risk". Fortune . Retrieved August 30, 2025.
  11. ↑ Ferreira Santos, Sofia; Walker, Amy (April 3, 2025). "World leaders criticise Trump tariffs as 'major blow'". BBC News . Retrieved August 31, 2025.
  12. ↑ Partington, Richard (April 3, 2025). "Trump's 'idiotic' and flawed tariff calculations stun economists". The Guardian . Retrieved August 31, 2025.
  13. 1 2 Romm, Tony (April 27, 2025). "Trump's Tariffs Prompt Wave of Lawsuits as States and Businesses Fight Back". The New York Times . Retrieved August 31, 2025.
  14. ↑ Wolfe, Jan (November 1, 2025). "A toy maker takes his case against Trump's tariffs to the Supreme Court". Reuters . Retrieved November 2, 2025.
  15. 1 2 3 Fanelli, James (May 11, 2025). "This Obscure New York Court Is Set to Decide Fate of Trump's Tariffs". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved May 12, 2025.
  16. ↑ Kayla Epstein, "A dozen US states sue to halt Trump's tariffs", BBC News , April 23, 2025.
  17. ↑ Swanson, Ana (September 26, 2025). "Trump Expands Tariffs Beyond Supreme Court's Reach". The New York Times . Retrieved September 28, 2025.
  18. 1 2 3 Howe 2025.
  19. ↑ Picchi 2025.
  20. 1 2 Somin, Ilya (April 23, 2025). "Bipartisan Group of Prominent Legal Scholars and Former Government Officials Files Amicus Brief Supporting Our Case Challenging Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs". The Volokh Conspiracy . Reason. Retrieved April 26, 2025.
  21. ↑ "Learning Resources v. Trump Amici Brief — Document #23" (PDF). Court Listener. Retrieved April 26, 2025.
  22. ↑ Calabresi, Steven (April 30, 2025). "The Tariffs Imposed by President Trump Are Unconstitutional". The Volokh Conspiracy . Reason. Retrieved May 12, 2025.
  23. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (May 7, 2025). "A federal court is about to decide whether to strike down Trump's tariffs". Yahoo! News. Vox . Retrieved May 12, 2025.
  24. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 2, 2025). "A Fiery Brief Fueled by Conservatives Helped Put Trump's Tariffs in Peril". The New York Times . Retrieved June 2, 2025.
  25. ↑ "Professor Michael McConnell Breaks Down the Separation-of-Powers Fight at the Heart of the Trump Tariffs Case". Stanford Law School. October 13, 2025. Retrieved February 20, 2026.
  26. ↑ Larson & Curtis 2025.
  27. ↑ Whitehurst 2025.
  28. ↑ Lalljee 2025.
  29. ↑ Stohr 2025.
  30. ↑ Li, Katherine (April 14, 2025). "A wine importer, pipe-maker, and fishing gear shop want to take down Trump's tariffs". Business Insider . Retrieved April 18, 2025.
  31. ↑ Kopnick, Jacob (April 14, 2025). "Conservative Group Brings Suit Against IEEPA Reciprocal Tariffs to Trade Court". International Trade Today. Retrieved April 18, 2025.
  32. ↑ Mangan, Dan (April 14, 2025). "U.S. businesses sue to block Trump tariffs, say trade deficits are not an emergency". CNBC . Retrieved April 18, 2025.
  33. 1 2 Gershman, Jacob (April 15, 2025). "New Lawsuit Takes Aim at Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved April 18, 2025.
  34. ↑ Brown, Caleb O. (April 16, 2025). "A Lawsuit to End 'Liberation Day' Tariffs". Cato Daily Podcast (Podcast). Cato Institute . Retrieved April 18, 2025.
  35. ↑ Schonfeld, Zach (April 14, 2025). "Trump sued over 'Liberation Day' tariffs". The Hill . Retrieved April 18, 2025.
  36. ↑ Jansen, Bart. "Small businesses call Trump's tariffs 'unlawful,' urge federal trade court to block them". USA Today . Retrieved May 24, 2025.
  37. ↑ Charalambous, Peter (May 13, 2025). "Lawyer calls Trump tariffs 'unlawful' as they face 1st test against small businesses". ABC News . Retrieved May 24, 2025.
  38. ↑ "Trade Court Asks If Trump Could Declare 'Peanut Butter Emergency' to Impose More Tariffs". Law.com International. Retrieved May 24, 2025.
  39. ↑ "Thoughts on Today's Oral Argument in Our Case Against Trump's IEEPA Tariffs". Reason.com. May 13, 2025. Retrieved May 25, 2025.
  40. ↑ "Parties for V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, 1:25-cv-00066 - CourtListener.com". CourtListener. Retrieved May 25, 2025.
  41. 1 2 Wiseman, Paul; Whitehurst, Lindsay (August 29, 2025). "Court finds Trump's tariffs an illegal use of emergency power, but leaves them in place for now". Associated Press . Retrieved August 29, 2025.
  42. ↑ Whitehurst, Lindsay; Boak, Josh (May 28, 2025). "Federal court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law". Associated Press News . Retrieved May 28, 2025.
  43. 1 2 3 4 Millhauser, Ian (May 28, 2025). "The sweeping federal court order blocking Trump's tariffs, explained". Vox . Retrieved May 28, 2025.
  44. ↑ Romm, Tony (May 29, 2025). "Court Ruling on Tariffs Upends Centerpiece of Trump's Trade Strategy". The New York Times . Retrieved May 29, 2025.
  45. ↑ Maruf, Ramishah; Cole, Devan (June 10, 2025). "Trump's tariffs can remain in place for now, but appeals court fast tracks a summer resolution". CNN . Retrieved June 10, 2025.
  46. ↑ Breuninger, Kevin; Mangan, Dan (July 31, 2025). "Appeals court skeptical of Trump tariff authority". CNBC . Retrieved August 1, 2025.
  47. ↑ "Judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress". Associated Press. August 1, 2025. Retrieved August 1, 2025– via CBC.
  48. ↑ Berkowitz, Ben (August 11, 2025). "Trump admin claims Social Security, Medicare at risk if tariffs blocked". Axios . Retrieved September 1, 2025.
  49. ↑ Romm, Tony (August 13, 2025). "Trump Warns of Economic Disaster if Court Strikes Down Tariffs". The New York Times . Retrieved September 1, 2025.
  50. 1 2 Knauth, Dietrich; Raymond, Nate; Hals, Tom (August 29, 2025). "Most Trump tariffs are not legal, US appeals court rules". Reuters . Retrieved August 20, 2025.
  51. ↑ Keenan, Alexis (August 30, 2025). "Appeals court invalidates many of Trump's tariffs. Next stop: The Supreme Court". Yahoo Finance . Retrieved September 1, 2025.
  52. 1 2 Palmer, Doug; Cheney, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh; Desrochers, Daniel (August 29, 2025). "Federal appeals court strikes down major chunk of Trump's tariffs". Politico . Retrieved September 1, 2025.
  53. ↑ Breuninger, Kevin; Mangan, Dan (August 29, 2025). "Most Trump tariffs ruled illegal by appeals court, dealing major blow to trade policy". CNBC . Retrieved August 29, 2025.
  54. ↑ Whitehurst, Lindsay (September 3, 2025). "Trump asks Supreme Court to quickly take up tariffs case and reverse ruling finding them illegal". Associated Press . Retrieved September 3, 2025.
  55. ↑ Doherty, Erin (September 3, 2025). "Trump asks Supreme Court to quickly hear appeal to save his tariffs". CNBC . Retrieved September 3, 2025.
  56. ↑ Schonfeld, Zach (September 9, 2025). "Supreme Court agrees to speedily review Trump's tariffs". The Hill . Nexstar Media Group. Retrieved September 9, 2025.
  57. ↑ Marimow & Liptak 2025.
  58. ↑ Marimow, Ann E. (November 3, 2025). "Supreme Court Confronts Trump and His Tariffs in Test of Presidential Power". The New York Times.
  59. ↑ Howe, Amy (October 30, 2025). "Trump's tariffs to face Supreme Court scrutiny". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  60. ↑ Koh, Harold (November 3, 2025). "A SCOTUS Bench Memo for the Trump Tariff Case: Separation of Powers, Delegation, Emergencies, and Pretext". Just Security. Retrieved November 4, 2025.
  61. ↑ Chemerinsky, Erwin (November 4, 2025). "The tariffs case and whether amicus briefs matter". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved November 4, 2025.
  62. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Will, George F. (October 31, 2025). "Presidential power and the Supreme Court's own stature ride on this case". The Washington Post . Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  63. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae Goldwater Institute, Dallas Market Center, and John Locke Foundation" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. October 24, 2025. Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  64. ↑ "Brief of Amicus Curiae Brennan Center for Justice" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. October 24, 2025. Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  65. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae Economists" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. October 24, 2025. Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  66. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae Former Officials and Legal Scholars" (PDF). Liberty Justice Center. October 24, 2025. Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  67. ↑ "Brief of the Institute for Policy Integrity as Amicus Curiae" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. October 23, 2025. Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  68. ↑ "Cato scholars file amicus briefs ahead of Supreme Court case on presidential tariff powers". Cato Institute . October 24, 2025. Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  69. ↑ Wise, Justin (October 28, 2025). "Katyal to Argue Supreme Court Trump Tariff Case After Coin Toss". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved November 6, 2025.
  70. ↑ Buckley, Kyra; Wilson, Conrad (November 5, 2025). "Oregon argues against Trump tariffs in case before US Supreme Court". Oregon Public Broadcasting. Retrieved November 23, 2025.
  71. ↑ Van Sickle, Abbie (November 5, 2025). "Lawyer Who Won Trump's Immunity Case Will Now Defend His Tariffs". The New York Times . Retrieved November 6, 2025.
  72. ↑ Breuninger, Kevin (October 15, 2025). "Trump says he might attend Supreme Court tariff case arguments next month". CNBC . Retrieved October 18, 2025.
  73. ↑ Sherman, Natalie (November 2, 2025). "World awaits landmark US Supreme Court decision on Trump's tariffs". BBC News . Retrieved November 2, 2025.
  74. ↑ Palmer, Doug; Gerstein, Josh; Desrochers, Daniel (November 5, 2025). "Justices appear skeptical of Trump's broad tariffs". Politico . Retrieved November 6, 2025.
  75. ↑ Fritze, John (November 5, 2025). "Thomas, Alito concerned about limiting president's power". CNN . Retrieved November 6, 2025.
  76. 1 2 Fritze, Jon (February 20, 2026). "Supreme Court rules that Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal". CNN . Retrieved February 20, 2026.
  77. ↑ Breuninger, Kevin (February 20, 2026). "Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs, rebuking president's signature economic policy". CNBC. Retrieved February 20, 2026.
  78. ↑ Chung, Andrew; Kruzel, John (February 20, 2026). "US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariffs". Reuters . Retrieved February 20, 2026.
  79. 1 2 3 4 5 Howe, Amy (February 20, 2026). "Supreme Court strikes down tariffs". SCOTUSBlog . Retrieved February 20, 2026.
  80. 1 2 Hurley, Lawrence (February 20, 2026). "Supreme Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs in a major blow to the president". NBC News . Retrieved February 20, 2026.
  81. ↑ "Supreme Court Invalidates Executive Tariffs Under IEEPA: A Technical Analysis of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump". Current Federal Tax Developments. February 20, 2026. Retrieved February 20, 2026.
  82. ↑ Edmondson, Catie (February 21, 2026). "In Gorsuch's Homage to Legislative Power, a Subtle Reproach of a Neutered Congress". The New York Times. Retrieved February 21, 2026.
  83. 1 2 3 Feldman, Adam (February 20, 2026). "A breakdown of the court's tariff decision". SCOTUSBlog . Retrieved February 22, 2026.
  84. ↑ VanSickle, Abbie (February 20, 2026). "In Dissent, Three Conservative Justices Warn Tariff Decision May Unleash Chaos, At Least in Short-Term". The New York Times . Retrieved February 22, 2026.
  85. ↑ Buchwald, Elizabeth (November 2, 2025). "Trade deals and $90 billion in tariff revenue: What's riding on the landmark Supreme Court case kicking off this week". CNN . Retrieved November 2, 2025.
  86. ↑ Claybourn, Joshua (October 28, 2025). "Recovering Unlawfully Imposed Tariffs — Navigating Refunds of IEEPA Duties". Lawfare. Lawfare Media. Retrieved November 3, 2025.
  87. ↑ Casey, Christopher A; Zirpoli, Christopher T. (January 13, 2026). "Potential Refunds of Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved February 24, 2026.
  88. ↑ Hawkins, Ari (September 7, 2025). "US could be forced to refund 'about half' of tariffs if SCOTUS rules against Trump, Bessent says". POLITICO. Retrieved February 24, 2026.
  89. ↑ Suter, Tara (February 22, 2026). "Bessent dodges questions about tariff refunds". The Hill . Retrieved February 24, 2026.
  90. ↑ Tillman, Zoe; Neumann, Jeannette (February 27, 2026). "Trump Faces 2,000 Tariff Lawsuits Following Supreme Court Loss". Bloomberg News . Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  91. 1 2 Davis, Sarah (February 21, 2026). "O'Leary says Supreme Court 'caused a nightmare' with tariff decision". The Hill.
  92. 1 2 Groves, Stephen (February 21, 2026). "Supreme Court ruling offers little relief for Republicans divided on Trump's tariffs". Los Angeles Times.
  93. 1 2 Lillis, Mike (February 21, 2026). "Republicans breathe sigh of relief as Supreme Court axes Trump tariffs". The Hill.
  94. ↑ Fink, Jack (February 20, 2026). "In Dallas, U.S. Treasury Secretary says Supreme Court ruling removes President Trump's ability to quickly leverage tariffs". CBS News.
  95. ↑ Mancini, Ryan (February 21, 2026). "Huckabee Sanders on tariffs: Fastest way to get Trump to act is 'tell him that he can't'". The Hill.
  96. ↑ "World reacts as US top court limits Trump's tariff powers". AlJazeera. February 21, 2026.
  97. ↑ Haake, Garrett; Lee, Carol E.; Allen, Jonathan (September 7, 2025). "The White House is exploring how to keep Trump's tariffs if the Supreme Court strikes them down". NBC News . Retrieved November 4, 2025.
  98. 1 2 Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 22, 2026.
  99. ↑ Totenberg, Nina (February 21, 2026). "Trump excoriates Supreme Court justices after tariff loss". NPR . Retrieved February 22, 2026.
  100. ↑ Bush, Daniel (February 20, 2026). "Trump lashes out at Supreme Court justices over tariffs ruling". BBC News . Retrieved February 22, 2026.
  101. ↑ Breuninger, Kevin (February 20, 2026). "Trump announces new 10% global tariff after raging over Supreme Court loss". CNBC . Retrieved February 20, 2026.
  102. ↑ "Trump's new global tariff comes into effect at 10%". www.bbc.com. February 24, 2026. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  103. ↑ Heuer, Mike (February 21, 2026). "Trump announces 15% global tariff after Supreme Court setback". United Press International. Retrieved February 21, 2026.
  104. ↑ Kopack, Steve (February 21, 2026). "Trump raises global tariff to 15% shortly after implementing reworked 10% levy". NBC News . Retrieved February 21, 2026.
  105. ↑ Somin, Ilya (February 21, 2026). "Andrew McCarthy on "Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal"". Reason. Retrieved February 22, 2026.
  106. ↑ Ma, Jason (February 21, 2026). "Trump's plan B to impose new tariffs is also illegal because a balance-of-payments deficit doesn't exist, trade experts say". Fortune . Retrieved February 22, 2026.
  107. ↑ Tobin, Meaghan (February 21, 2026). "Trump Doubles Down on Closing Tax Loophole on Cheap Imports". The New York Times . Retrieved February 22, 2026.

Further reading

Learning Resources v. Trump

V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump

Supreme Court

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.