Justices Skeptical of Trump Administration Tariffs

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections) on November 5, 2025. While we will have to wait for the Court’s final decision, several justices appeared skeptical of whether President Donald Trump has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (EEPA).

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. Until now, no President in IEEPA’s nearly 50-year history has ever invoked it to impose tariffs.

Two groups of plaintiffs, which include 12 states and several small business owners, filed suit. One suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, while the other was brought in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). InLearning 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.

InTrump v. V.O.S. Selections,the CIT sided 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 Court

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on an expedited basis and consolidated the cases for oral argument. It agreed to consider “whether the IEEPA authorizes the President to impose tariffs.”

Oral Arguments

Representing the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that EEPA “confers major powers to address major problems on the President, who is perhaps the most major actor in the realm of foreign affairs.” With regard to the phrase “regulate … importation,” Sauer maintained that it “plainly embraces tariffs, which are among the most traditional and direct methods of regulating importation.”

Neal Katyal, an attorney for the small business challengers,characterized it is as “simply implausible that in enacting IEEPA Congress handed the President the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process.” To the contrary, “Congress knows exactly how to delegate its tariff powers. Every time for 238 years, it’s done so explicitly, always with real limits,” he argued.

Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that the President’s usurpation of the tariff authority of Congress violates the separation of powers. He asked: “What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — or for that matter, declare war — to the president?”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that IEEPA was intended to restrain presidential authority, not expand it. “It’s pretty clear that Congress was trying to constrain the emergency powers of the president,” she stated.

Rather than focus exclusively on the limits of presidential power, the questioning also centered on the text of the IEEPA and how it should be interpreted. Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked: “Can you point to any other place in the code or any time in history where that phrase ‘regulate importation’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” Of course, it would not be the first time that the Court decided a high-stakes case based on the language of a statute and failed to squarely address the larger principles of constitutional law.

Given the expedited nature of the case, a decision is expected well before the end of the term. However, it is unclear when exactly the Court will issue an opinion. Please check back for updates.