Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the President authority to impose tariffs. The Court found that the Constitution gives the power to tax exclusively to Congress, and the President cannot use general regulatory powers to raise revenue.

This ruling protects businesses like Learning Resources that manufacture goods abroad from sudden price increases caused by executive-ordered tariffs. It ensures that any new taxes on imported products must be specifically authorized by Congress rather than the President alone.

The decision reinforces the separation of powers (the division of government responsibilities) by limiting executive reach into areas traditionally controlled by the legislature. It clarifies that while the President has broad emergency powers, those powers do not include the extraordinary authority to levy taxes.

6-3. Majority: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson. Dissent: Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito.

“The Constitution exclusively vests the power to lay and collect taxes, including the power to impose tariffs, in Congress.”

“Justice Kavanaugh argued that historical practice, precedent, and the ordinary meaning of the word 'regulate' establish that IEEPA authorizes presidential tariffs.”

The President cannot bypass Congress to impose tariffs because the power to tax is a specific authority held only by the legislative branch.

The case has been sent back to lower courts to address the executive orders issued in early 2025. If the President wants the power to use tariffs during emergencies, Congress would likely need to pass a new law with explicit language.

Chief Justice Roberts explained that while taxes can help regulate commerce, the power to raise revenue is a distinct and extraordinary power. The Court noted that IEEPA lists nine specific actions the President can take but omits any mention of tariffs or duties.

Companies like Learning Resources, which design products domestically but manufacture in China, will no longer face tariffs imposed under this specific emergency law. This provides more financial stability for their supply chains and helps prevent price hikes for educational products.

Justice Gorsuch argued that the major questions doctrine (requiring clear permission for big executive actions) was necessary to protect the separation of powers. However, Justice Kagan and two other justices felt the case could be solved using simple word definitions without using that doctrine.