U.S. Supreme Court Adds Tariff Case to Docket

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider two lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s new tariff policy, which he implemented earlier this year through a series of executive orders. The cases, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, both center on whether the President has the authority to impose the tariffs.

Facts of the Case

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701)(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[.]”

Beginning in February 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders invoking IEEPA to unilaterally impose tariffs on many foreign goods. The executive orders used three other statutory provisions to implement the tariffs: the National Emergencies Act; Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the President to edit the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); and 3 U.S.C. § 301, which enables the President to delegate functions to subordinates. 

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, two small businesses challenged the legality of five of President Trump’s executive orders. The lawsuit named President Trump; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; the Department of Homeland Security; Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; the Department of the Treasury; Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce; the Department of Commerce; Pete R. Flores, Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Patrol; Customs and Border Patrol; Jamieson Greer, U.S. Trade Representative; and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative as Defendants.

In response to the suit, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer the action to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over “any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for,” as relevant here, “tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

In Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, several other small businesses and a group of states, led by Oregon,similarly asserted that the tariffs exceed Trump’s power under IEEPA. They filed their lawsuit in the CIT.

Lower Courts’ Decisions

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the district court held that the CIT does not have exclusive jurisdiction because the IEEPA is not a “law . . . providing for” “tariffs, duties, fees or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue.” In granting the injunction, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras further found that the Trump Administration lacked the authority to impose the tariffs.

“This case is not about tariffs qua tariffs. It is about whether IEEPA enables the President to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy,” he wrote. “The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it does not.”

In Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the CITsided with the challengers, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the decision. According to the appeals court, when “Congress intends to delegate to the President the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs.”

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on an expedited basis and consolidated the cases for oral argument.

In Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Court agreed to consider the following questions: 1. Whether the IEEPA 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. The question before the justices in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump is: Whether the IEEPAauthorizes the president to impose tariffs.

The cases will be set for argument in the first week of the November 2025 argument session, which begins on November 3, 20256. Please check back for updates.