No. 24-1287October Term 2025Decided February 20, 2026Updated Sep 5, 2026
IEEPA tariffs
Learning Resources v. Trump
The president cannot use IEEPA as authority to set tariffs; Congress retains that power.
Case status
Where it stands
IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25– 250 is affirmed. No. 24–1287, 784 F. Supp. 3d 209, vacated and remanded; No. 25–250, 149 F. 4th 1312, affirmed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II–A–1: Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power which “very clear[ly]” includes the power to impose tariffs. Gibbons v.
Decided 6-3 · February 20, 2026 · Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
Read the opinion (PDF)- Argued alongside
Question presented
Does the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), authorize the president to impose tariffs?
Timeline
Decision
What the Court decided
Vacated
Impact
Importing businesses, including Learning Resources and hand2mind, are affected because IEEPA cannot support presidential tariffs. These family-owned educational-product companies manufacture mostly with international partners, including China. For example, tariffs imposed under IEEPA on their imported products cannot rest on that law. Next, presidents need clear congressional authorization to impose peacetime tariffs (taxes on imports). Congress retains constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes, including tariffs.
Opinion documents
Briefing
What it's about
The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not let the president impose tariffs on imports. The decision vacated the Trump administration tariffs imposed under that law.
Vote
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the 6–3 opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor; Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson concurred; Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented.
“IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
Impact
Importers affected by the IEEPA tariffs can no longer face duties imposed under that statute. For example, a company importing goods cannot be charged an IEEPA tariff simply because the president declares an emergency.
What's next
The lower court must dismiss No. 24–1287 because it lacked authority to hear the case, while the judgment in No. 25–250 stands. Agencies and affected parties must treat IEEPA as providing no authority for presidential tariffs.
What did the Supreme Court rule in Learning Resources v. Trump?
The Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs on imports. It vacated the tariffs imposed under that law.
Who won Learning Resources v. Trump?
Learning Resources and the other challengers won. The Court rejected the Trump administration's claim that IEEPA allowed the tariffs.
What does Learning Resources v. Trump mean for importers?
Importers cannot be charged tariffs imposed under IEEPA. The decision affects businesses that imported goods subject to those emergency-law tariffs.
What happens next after Learning Resources v. Trump?
The lower court must dismiss No. 24–1287 for lack of authority to hear it. The judgment in No. 25–250 remains in place.
Timing
Decided February 20, 2026
The Court released its decision 107 days after oral argument on November 5, 2025. The median for cases argued in November is 160 days.
Activity
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Opinion added: opinion
Show all 9Show fewer
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - R
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Trump
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
Related cases
Mujera Benjamin Lung'aho v. United StatesDecided25-6124Decided
Geofence warrantsOkello T. Chatrie, Petitioner v. United StatesDecided25-112Decided
Federal Reserve removal powerDonald J. Trump, President of the United States, Applicant v. Lisa D. Cook, Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemDecided25A312Decided
FTC removal protectionsDonald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Rebecca Kelly SlaughterDecided25-332Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.