Supreme Court Nixes Tariffs
Learning Resources, Inc. et al v. Trump, President of the United States, et al, 607 U.S. ____; 2026 U.S. LEXIS 714 *, 2026 LX 93123 (2026).
By Fraser K. Mitchell, Associate Attorney at Galloway Johnson Tompkins Burr & Smith
The Supreme Court of the United States concurrently decided Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump, President of the United States, et al., and Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Shortly after President Trump took office in 2024, he sought to address the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico, Canada, and China, as well as the U.S.’s global trade deficits.[1] Trump’s executive branch invoked authority to enact sweeping and flexible tariffs on various countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).[2]
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority of the Court, outlined that President Trump’s reliance on the words “regulate” and “importation” in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA was misplaced to the extent that this statute did not grant the president “independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.”[3] He began by pointing out that the power to tax belongs to the Legislative Branch and that imposing tariffs is part of the power to tax.[4] The President accordingly lacks any inherent authority to tax and must rely on specific delegations of this power by Congressional statute.[5] Chief Justice Roberts then classified this controversy as a “major question” case.[6] The crux of the majority’s reasoning was that the language of the statute was too ambiguous to properly conclude that Congress had delegated such sweeping and broad authority on a core Congressional power, absent more express language.[7] The majority was unpersuaded by arguments that the emergency status of the statute or the relationship between tariffs and foreign affairs circumvented the application of the major questions doctrine and its requirement to “‘point to clear congressional authorization’” in order to exercise the extraordinary assertion of power to impose such tariffs.[8]
However, despite the favorable ruling for those involved in maritime trade to the United States, industry insiders, commentators, and any working knowledge of the second Trump Administration suggests that this decision will not harbinger the end of President Trump’s tariff policy. The same day that the Supreme Court issued its decision limiting President Trump’s executive authority under IEEPA, articles from the Cato Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations outlined various statutory authorities that the current administration could rely on going forward.[9] Both articles outline various statutes, including Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, that could allow the recreation of the IEEPA tariffs in a shorter-term and more targeted fashion.[10]
[1] Learning Resources, Inc. et al v. Trump, President of the United States, et al, 607 U.S. ____, *2 (2026).
[2] Id at *1—2.
[3] Id at *5.
[4] Id at *5—6.
[5] See id at *6-7 (the particular issue before the Supreme Court in this case was deciding the purported grant of authority under IEEPA).
[6] Learning Resources, 607 U.S. ___, at*7.
[7] Id at *8—12.
[8] Id at *12—13 (quoting Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477, 506 (2023)).
[9] Packard, C (2026. February 20). The Supreme Court Got It Right on IEEPA—But Don’t Pop the Champagne Yet. CATO at LIBERTY. https://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-got-it-right-ieepa-dont-pop-champagne-yet; Manak, I (2026, February 20). How Trump’s Tariffs Could Survive the Supreme Court Ruling. The Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/articles/how-trumps-tariffs-could-survive-the-supreme-court-ruling.
[10] Id.
