- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
- within Corporate/Commercial Law, Energy and Natural Resources and Technology topic(s)
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 6-3 majority, held that IEEPA justified neither the President's drug trafficking tariffs nor his reciprocal tariffs.
The consolidated cases of Learning Resources v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. Trump presented the question of whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs. Under IEEPA, once the President identifies a qualifying "unusual and extraordinary threat" from abroad and declares a national emergency in response to the threat, he may "regulate . . . importation" to "deal with" that threat. 50 U. S. C. §§ 1701(a), 1702(a)(1)(B); 90 Stat. 1255. After declaring national emergencies concerning drug trafficking and global trade deficits, President Trump invoked IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs on Mexico, Canada, China (drug trafficking tariffs), and numerous trading partners (reciprocal tariffs).
The Court relied primarily on the separation of powers, statutory interpretation, and the major questions doctrine to reach its decision. To the Court, imposing tariffs is a core taxing power assigned specifically to Congress—not the Executive—in Article I of the Constitution. Considering this explicit constitutional delegation of the taxing power to Congress, the Court found that IEEPA's authorization to "regulate . . . importation" lacks clear tariff or duty language and thus authorizes regulatory and transactional controls rather than revenue-raising taxation powers: "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. Those words cannot bear such weight." Applying the major questions doctrine, the Court also stated that Congress would have used more explicit and strict language if it had intended to confer such a consequential, core congressional power to the Executive.
The Court also noted a lack of historical precedent for tariffs of this magnitude and scope under IEEPA, and it was unwilling to exempt emergencies or matters of foreign affairs from the scrutiny of the major questions doctrine.
Among the decision's separate writings, Justice Kagan's concurrence in part agreed that IEEPA does not permit tariffs, but it stated that here, reliance on the major questions doctrine is unnecessary given the tools of statutory interpretation. In dissent, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the context surrounding IEEPA's passage in 1977 indicates that the power to impose tariffs would have been understood.
In light of the Court's holding, the judgment in Learning Resources was vacated, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment in V.O.S. Selections was affirmed.
Moving forward, the IEEPA tariff regime cannot stand. Following the Supreme Court's decision striking down the IEEPA‑based tariffs, President Trump announced that he will impose a new global 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.Section 122 authorizes the President to implement temporary, across‑the‑board tariffs without congressional approval, but the statute strictly limits such measures to a maximum of 150 days, with no mechanism to extend or restart the clock once that period expires. After the Section 122 authority runs out, the Administration may seek to transition to other statutory tools—most notably Section 232 (national security) or Section 301 (unfair trade practices)—to maintain or expand tariff coverage. Given these shifting authorities and timelines, importers, brokers, and states should consult counsel to assess potential refund avenues, evaluate possible challenges, and plan for future tariff exposure.
Check out our new Digital Magazine Get the inside scoop on the Braumiller Law Group & Braumiller Consulting Group "peeps." Expertise in International Trade Compliance.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
