Trump's Tariffs Face the Supreme Court

November 11th, 2025
Blake McFalls

In May, the Court of International Trade ruled against Donald Trump’s tariffs in the case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, highlighting that tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unconstitutional. After a Federal Appeals Court ruled in the same way, the case has now reached the Supreme Court.

Tariffs have been the central tools of Trump’s trade and foreign policy. Beginning in January, Trump levied tariffs on Canada and Mexico to coerce the nations into cracking down on the fentanyl trade. In February, these tariffs were extended to China. Most jarringly, however, Trump unveiled “Liberation Day tariffs,” where every country would face a rate ranging from 10% to 50%. All of these tariffs were justified under IEEPA, a 1977 law that allows the president to regulate international trade in the instance of a national emergency. Although Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, Trump claims IEEPA gives the president the power to tariff under the power to “regulate” commerce. Burdened by the high cost of imports due to tariffs on China, Learning Resources, a company that designs educational toys, filed suit against Trump.

The Court of International Trade, the first court that took the case, sided with Learning Resources for a multitude of reasons. Since tariffs are defined as taxes on imports, tariffs are generally supposed to be administered by Congress. Congress has given the president some authority to levy tariffs, but due to the non-delegation doctrine, Congress has only vested this power in very limited scopes. This undermines the notion that IEEPA, which is relatively broad, was tariff-delegating legislation. The word cited in Trump’s usage of IEEPA, regulate, does not include taxation as a subset of its meaning. The Court also questioned whether the trade deficit equated to a national emergency and whether regulation was a material way to deal with the other emergency, fentanyl.

The case now hangs in the balance of the Supreme Court after Trump’s lawyers appealed two previous rulings. The oral arguments reveal how the Supreme Court feels about the usage of IEEPA: uneasy. The justices posed many more questions to Trump’s solicitor general, rather than the plaintiffs. The most frequently asked question, specifically from Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett, was where the IEEPA gave the president the power to impose tariffs. The Justices also noted that previous tariff delegations, such as Section 232, Section 301, and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, used the word tariff explicitly. The non-delegation doctrine, or the judicial concept that limits Congressional delegation of powers to the executive, was a common spectacle in the two previous rulings, yet a relatively new one was the major questions doctrine. The major question doctrine states that Congress has sole authority over actions of “vast economic and political significance”. Justices largely indicated that IEEPA tariffs checked off both of these boxes. Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that IEEPA, allowing Congress to cede absolute power to tariffs to the president, is a slippery slope, because it could be paralleled to Congress ceding the power to declare war, for example, in the future.

Conservative skepticism of Trump’s tariffs indicates the justices will side with Learning Resources by a significant margin, potentially 6-3. Although Trump would still be able to impose more targeted tariffs, a striking of blanket and universal tariffs would squander Trump’s economic and political agenda. It would also bring certainty to markets. For instance, in order to levy Section 232 tariffs, or tariffs for national security purposes, more effort and time must be spent, in addition to these tariffs being less damaging for most sectors of the economy. For companies who rely on imports such as Learning Resources, a ruling against Trump would be a massive boon.

Question: How will the Supreme Court rule in Learning Resources, Inc v. Trump?

Extemp Analysis by: Blake McFalls

AGD: The word tariff comes from ta’rif, derived from 16th century Arabian markets that means “what the heck is that”

Background: Trump liberation day tariffs

Context: SCOTUS hears oral arguments

SOS: price increase for average American family

Thesis: rule against, because SCOTUS believes usage of IEEPA for tariffs is unconstitutional

1: exclusion of the word tariff in IEEPA

2: major questions doctrine

3: non-delegation doctrine

Substructure: expectation/verification or violation

Example point:

1a: explicit usage of word tariff in Trade Expansion Act/Section 232/Section 301

1b: “regulation” does not mean “taxing” or “tariff”

1c: justices point this out already