SCOTUS Strikes Down Majority of Trump Tariffs

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration. 

According to the Court’s six-member majority, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the majority, which also included Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Maya Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Facts of the Case

Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump sought to address two foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China, and “large and persistent” trade deficits. The President declared a national emergency as to both threats, deeming them “unusual and extraordinary,” and invoked his authority under IEEPA to respond.

Enacted in 1977, the IEEPA gives the President economic tools to address significant foreign threats. When acting under IEEPA, the President must identify an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to American national security, foreign policy, or the economy, originating primarily “outside the United States.” Additionally, he must “declare[] a national emergency” under the National Emergencies Act.

He may then, “by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise,” take the following actions to “deal with” the threat: “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.”

In response to the drug trafficking tariffs, the President imposed a 25% duty on most Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10% duty on most Chinese imports. As to the trade deficit (“reciprocal”) tariffs, the President imposed a duty “on all imports from all trading partners” of at least 10%, with dozens of nations facing higher rates. Since imposing each set of tariffs, the President has issued several increases, reductions, and other modifications.

Learning Resources and V.O.S. Selections filed suit, alleging that IEEPA does not authorize the reciprocal or drug trafficking tariffs. The Learning Resources plaintiffs—two small businesses—sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That court denied the Government’s motion to transfer the case to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that IEEPA did not grant the President the power to impose tariffs. 

The V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs—five small businesses and 12 States—sued in the CIT. That court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in relevant part, concluding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation” did not authorize the challenged tariffs, which “are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.”

The Government filed a petition for certiorari in V.O.S. Selections, and the Learning Resources plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari before judgment. The Court granted the petitions and consolidated the cases.

Supreme Court’s Decision

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court held that the IEEPA does not grant the President the authority to impose tariffs. “Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section

1702(a)(1)(B) of 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,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch, but rather granted that authority exclusively to Congress. The Court went on to find that had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs in the IEEPA, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes. As the Chief Justice explained:

The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation” falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word “regulate” to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

In a part of the opinion joined only by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Chief Justice Roberts further found that President Trump’s reliance on IEEPA to impose the tariffs violated the “major questions” doctrine, which holds that government actions with great political or economic significance must be based on a clear legislative authority.
“[I]f Congress were to relinquish that weapon to another branch, a ‘reasonable interpreter’ would expect it to do so ‘clearly,’”Roberts wrote. The Court’s liberal justices agreed that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, but concluded that the Court did not need to invoke the major questions doctrine because the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation amply supported that result.