Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_new_3135.pdf
Case background
Shortly after taking office, President Trump invoked the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address what he identified as two
foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China,
and “large and persistent” trade deficits. Declaring a national emergency as
to each and deeming the threats “unusual and extraordinary,” the President
imposed two sets of tariffs — “drug trafficking” tariffs of 25% on most
Canadian and Mexican imports and 10% on most Chinese imports, and
“reciprocal” tariffs of at least 10% on imports from all trading partners,
with dozens of nations facing higher rates. He then issued numerous further
increases, reductions, and modifications.
Two groups of plaintiffs sued, alleging that IEEPA does not authorize either
set of tariffs. The Learning Resources plaintiffs — two small businesses —
sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which denied
the Government’s motion to transfer the case to the Court of International
Trade (CIT) and preliminarily enjoined the tariffs. The V.O.S. Selections
plaintiffs — five small businesses and 12 States — sued in the CIT, which
granted them summary judgment. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed
in relevant part, holding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . .
importation” did not authorize the challenged tariffs, which “are unbounded
in scope, amount, and duration.” The Court granted certiorari — including
before judgment in Learning Resources — and consolidated the cases.
Questions Presented
Holding
IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Article I, Section 8
of the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to “lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and the power to impose tariffs is a branch of
that taxing power; the Government concedes the President has no inherent
peacetime authority to impose them. The President must therefore point to
clear congressional authorization, and IEEPA’s authority to “regulate . . .
importation” does not supply it: the statute never mentions tariffs or
duties, the ordinary power to “regulate” does not include the distinct power
to tax, and no President had invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs in the statute’s
nearly half-century of existence. The judgment in No. 24-1287 is vacated and
remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the
judgment in No. 25-250 is affirmed.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the
opinion of the Court, except as to Parts II–A–2 and III, which were joined
only by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett. The Court divided 6–3 on the
result. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Barrett filed
a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson,
agreeing that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs but concluding that
ordinary tools of statutory interpretation — rather than the major questions
doctrine — sufficed to decide the case. Justice Jackson also filed a separate
opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, adding that she
would consult legislative history. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting
opinion, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Thomas filed a
separate dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
*Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump *, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_new_3135.pdf
Case background
Shortly after taking office, President Trump invoked the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address what he identified as two
foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China,
and “large and persistent” trade deficits. Declaring a national emergency as
to each and deeming the threats “unusual and extraordinary,” the President
imposed two sets of tariffs — “drug trafficking” tariffs of 25% on most
Canadian and Mexican imports and 10% on most Chinese imports, and
“reciprocal” tariffs of at least 10% on imports from all trading partners,
with dozens of nations facing higher rates. He then issued numerous further
increases, reductions, and modifications.
Two groups of plaintiffs sued, alleging that IEEPA does not authorize either
set of tariffs. The Learning Resources plaintiffs — two small businesses —
sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which denied
the Government’s motion to transfer the case to the Court of International
Trade (CIT) and preliminarily enjoined the tariffs. The V.O.S. Selections
plaintiffs — five small businesses and 12 States — sued in the CIT, which
granted them summary judgment. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed
in relevant part, holding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . .
importation” did not authorize the challenged tariffs, which “are unbounded
in scope, amount, and duration.” The Court granted certiorari — including
before judgment in Learning Resources — and consolidated the cases.
Questions Presented
Holding
IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Article I, Section 8
of the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to “lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and the power to impose tariffs is a branch of
that taxing power; the Government concedes the President has no inherent
peacetime authority to impose them. The President must therefore point to
clear congressional authorization, and IEEPA’s authority to “regulate . . .
importation” does not supply it: the statute never mentions tariffs or
duties, the ordinary power to “regulate” does not include the distinct power
to tax, and no President had invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs in the statute’s
nearly half-century of existence. The judgment in No. 24-1287 is vacated and
remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the
judgment in No. 25-250 is affirmed.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the
opinion of the Court, except as to Parts II–A–2 and III, which were joined
only by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett. The Court divided 6–3 on the
result. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Barrett filed
a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson,
agreeing that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs but concluding that
ordinary tools of statutory interpretation — rather than the major questions
doctrine — sufficed to decide the case. Justice Jackson also filed a separate
opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, adding that she
would consult legislative history. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting
opinion, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Thomas filed a
separate dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
*Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump *, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.