Blue Brief 2025-2026

Michael Rappaport

Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump: A Cross-Ideological Majority Rejects Presidential Tariffs Under Emergency Powers Law

IX.

I n one of the most consequential decisions of the recent term, the Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump struck down the tariff regime at the heart of President Trump’s economic program. By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The decision invalidated sweeping tariffs that the Trump administration had imposed on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and most other trading partners, including the “Liberation Day” tariffs announced in April 2025. The breadth of the tariff program made the stakes unusually high. President Trump had invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs of over 100 percent on goods from various countries, relying on declared national emergencies concerning drug trafficking and trade deficits . Writing for a six-justice majority on the threshold statutory question, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the relevant IEEPA language,

which authorized the President to “regulate … importation” of property during a declared emergency, cannot bear the weight of the President’s assertion of the statute’s authority. The President was claiming the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. The Court held that the power to “regulate … importation” did not support such broad presidential authority. The coalition that produced the 6-3 result was notable for its ideological composition. The majority included three Republican appointees — Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett — alongside the three Democratic appointees. Two of the three Trump-appointed justices (Gorsuch and Barrett) thus sided against the administration’s position. Despite reaching the same bottom line, however, the six justices in the majority did so through two different rationales. The majority

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW | Faculty Review of 2025-2026 U.S. Supreme Court Term | Page 29