# Learning Resources v. Trump **No. 24-1287, decided February 20, 2026**, consolidated with *Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.* The Supreme Court held **6–3** that the [[International Emergency Economic Powers Act]] does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The [[Liberation Day Tariffs]] and the fentanyl-emergency tariffs imposed under it therefore exceeded the power Congress had delegated. ## How it got there | Date | Step | |---|---| | May 28, 2025 | A three-judge [[Court of International Trade]] panel holds the IEEPA tariffs unlawful and enjoins them nationwide (*V.O.S. Selections*) | | May 29, 2025 | Judge Rudolph Contreras (D.D.C.) reaches the same result for two toy companies, relief limited to the parties (*Learning Resources*) | | Aug 29, 2025 | The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirms 7–4 | | Sept 9, 2025 | Certiorari granted on an expedited schedule | | Nov 5, 2025 | Argued; Solicitor General [[D. John Sauer]] for the government | | Feb 20, 2026 | Decided 6–3 | | Feb 24, 2026 | IEEPA tariffs end at 12:00 a.m. Eastern under an executive order issued the day of the ruling | ## The lineup - **Judgment:** [[John Roberts]] with [[Sonia Sotomayor]], [[Elena Kagan]], [[Neil Gorsuch]], [[Amy Coney Barrett]] and [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]. - **Roberts's reasoning.** IEEPA lets the President "regulate … importation." The Court held that verb cannot carry the taxing power: "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties." Reading it to include taxation would also run into the Export Clause. - **The [[Major Questions Doctrine]] split.** Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett also rested on major-questions reasoning. Gorsuch added a [[Nondelegation Doctrine]] concurrence, warning of a "one way ratchet" that moves power permanently to the executive. Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, concurred in the judgment but said ordinary statutory reading was enough and the plurality was putting its "thumb on the scale." - **Dissents:** [[Brett Kavanaugh]], joined by [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Samuel Alito]], called tariffs a "traditional and common" tool of import regulation and pointed to § 232 and § 301 as routes that might support "most (if not all)" of the duties. Thomas also dissented separately. The three Justices the right counts on for the major-questions doctrine used it against a Republican President. ## What it decided, and what it didn't The holding is a **delegation limit**, not a finding about whether an emergency existed. Courts still decline to second-guess whether an emergency exists. What the case establishes is an outer boundary on what an emergency statute can be read to authorize. An emergency power written to *block* foreign property cannot be read to *tax* domestic imports, however the emergency is described ([[Emergency Powers Crosswalk]]). The sanctions power IEEPA supports, most of the [[Office of Foreign Assets Control]] program, was untouched. ## The aftermath: three statutes in five months 1. **Refunds.** About **$166 billion** in IEEPA duties became refundable. Customs launched an automated refund system on April 20, 2026 for more than 330,000 importers, and the Court of International Trade supervised it. 2. **§ 122.** Also on February 24, the administration imposed a universal **10%** surcharge under § 122 of the [[Trade Act of 1974]], a balance-of-payments authority capped at 15% and 150 days. On **May 7, 2026** the CIT held it unlawful in *Oregon v. United States*: balance-of-payments deficits in the statute's sense cannot occur under floating exchange rates. Relief was limited to the plaintiffs, the Federal Circuit stayed it, and the surcharge ran to its July 24 expiry. 3. **§ 301.** Investigations opened March 12, 2026 led to the [[Section 301 Forced Labor Tariffs]], now under challenge in turn. § 232 national-security tariffs on steel, aluminum and other sectors continued throughout. The ruling did not end the tariff program. It forced the program to move from a statute with no procedural requirements to ones that have them. Each replacement comes with findings, investigations and time limits that IEEPA never required. That is the practical content of a delegation holding: the policy survived, and the shortcut to it did not. ## See also - [[International Emergency Economic Powers Act]] · [[Emergency Powers Crosswalk]] · [[National Emergencies Act]] - [[Court of International Trade]] · [[Trade Act of 1974]] · [[Tariffs]] · [[Jamieson Greer]] - [[Major Questions Doctrine]] · [[Nondelegation Doctrine]] · [[INS v. Chadha]] · [[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]