Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

    Issues

    Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorize the President to impose tariffs?

    Oral argument:
    November 05, 2025
    Court below:
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

     

    This case asks whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) authorizes the president to impose tariffs in an emergency. Learning Resources contends that the IEEPA does not give the president tariff authority, and—even if it does—does not grant the broad authority the President claims. President Trump argues that a plain-meaning interpretation of the IEEPA grants tariff authority, and the IEEPA does not limit the scope of the tariff power because the limitation is not expressly listed as other limitations are. This case raises significant issues about the separation of powers and future of foreign relations.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs. 

    Facts

    The 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act (“TWEA”) granted the United States President the power to restrict trade with certain foreign countries during wartimes. In 1977, Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) to allow the President to exercise similar, but more limited, powers during declared national emergencies. 

    Since the beginning of his second term in January 2025, President Trump has noted concerns with the United States’ trade imbalance, loss of domestic manufacturing, national security, and inflows of illegal drugs. President Trump determined that annual United States trade deficits were the root cause of these problems. After surveying the economic and security risks, President Trump declared an economic state of emergency on April 2, 2025.

    Following the declaration, President Trump imposed a minimum ten percent tariff on most imported goods. President Trump justified this action pursuant to the IEEPA. Through several executive orders, invoking his IEEPA powers, President Trump imposed a twenty-five percent tariff on Canada and Mexico to curtail the drug market operating across the country’s land borders. After the imposition of these tariffs, over seventy-five trading partners began negotiations with the United States for bilateral trade deals.

    Learning Resources and hand2mind, two educational toy companies that import most of their goods from China, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and requested a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the new tariffs. President Trump requested the case be transferred to the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”). The CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions brought against the United States government relating to federal laws, including tariffs used for purposes other than raising federal funds. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Learning Resources’ request for a preliminary injunction and denied President Trump’s motion to transfer venue. However, the preliminary injunction was immediately stayed pending appeal.Learning Resources filed for a writ for certiorari from the Supreme Court.  

    V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and four other small businesses (“V.O.S.”) and the State of Oregon and eleven other states (“Oregon”) also filed lawsuits against President Trump. The V.O.S. suit combined with the States’ suit in an appeal to the Federal Circuit. The CIT had previously held that the IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs imposed by President Trump’s executive orders. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT decision. President Trump filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of whether IEEPA authorizes these tariffs and if so, whether that delegation of authority is unconstitutional.

    On September 9, 2025, the Court granted a review of this question to Learning Resources, V.O.S., and Oregon (collectively, “Learning Resources”). The Supreme Court consolidated the Learning Resources case with the already-consolidated V.O.S. and Oregon case. 

    Analysis

    INTERPRETATION OF THE IEEPA

    Learning Resources argues that the IEEPA does not include tariffs in the provision that the President may “regulate . . . importation or exportation” during a national emergency.  Learning Resources compares the IEEPA to other statutory provisions that grant tariff authority and asserts that, while Congress explicitly references tariffs in other statutes, Congress has never used “regulate” to authorize tariffs. Learning Resources argues that the plain meaning of regulate does not include tariff authority, but even if it did, the relevant question is not the dictionary definition of the word but whether Congress intended the word to convey tariff authority. Learning Resources argues that although the IEEPA draws on language from the TWEA, the Act allowed the president to regulate only exports—not imports—so the phrase does not confer tariff power. Learning Resources also highlights that TWEA’s wartime powers historically did not include the power to impose tariffs, and no president has ever used the IEEPA to impose tariffs.

    Learning Resources argues that the IEEPA’s statutory context shows that it does not grant tariff authority because the surrounding verbs—“block,” “direct,” and “compel”—all relate to the President’s authority to stop transactions with foreign countries during emergencies. Learning Resources highlights that tariffs, by contrast, do not halt trade with foreign countries and, instead, permit continued transactions with a fee to do so. Learning Resources contrasts the IEEPA with Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which delegates tariff authority to “adjust the imports.” Learning Resources explains that the surrounding sections of the Trade Expansion Act expressly reference tariffs, while the surrounding sections of the IEEPA do not.

    On the other hand, President Trump argues for a plain text reading of “regulate . . . importation,” which he asserts includes the imposition of tariffs. President Trump relies on Supreme Court precedent in McGoldrick v. Gulf Oil Corp., which states that the imposition of duties on imports is “an exercise of the power to regulate foreign commerce.” President Trump points to Gibbons v. Ogden, Board of Trustees v. United States, and Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton to support the contention that regulating foreign commerce includes the regulation of tariffs. President Trump further contends that the language of the IEEPA was drawn from the TWEA, which did include the power to impose tariffs. President Trump alleges that when a sequel statute follows the language of a prequel statute, as is the case here, the sequel statute adopts the same interpretation as the prequel. Therefore, President Trump asserts that the IEEPA must include the power to impose tariffs just as the TWEA did.

    President Trump also seeks to disprove Learning Resources’ contention that Congress would have used a particular phrase to demonstrate intent to include a tariff-regulation power in the IEEPA. President Trump points to the same section, Section 232, of the Trade Expansion Act to explain that Congress empowered the President “to adjust the imports.” President Trump relies on FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., which held that this particular power includes a power to use “monetary methods,” such as imposing tariffs on foreign countries. President Trump argues that although the Trade Expansion Act discusses “duty” in the surrounding language, the Court’s analysis of “adjust the imports” in Algonquin did not rely on that surrounding language. As a result, President Trump maintains that it is not relevant in the analysis here.

    SCOPE OF THE IEEPA

    Learning Resources argues that even if the IEEPA’s provision that the President may “regulate . . . importation” does include tariffs, the tariffs here exceed the scope of the statute.  Learning Resources posits that the IEEPA does not grant the expansive tariff authority President Trump seeks because the statute is not explicit, and—under the major questions doctrine—Congress must act unambiguously when granting economically or politically important authority. Learning Resources explains that granting unlimited tariff authority would create constitutional issues under the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities, and Congress must provide an intelligible principle to agencies. Learning Resources contends that the IEEPA lacks any such principle guiding the Executive Branch’s tariff authority, so interpreting the IEEPA to grant expansive tariff authority would create a nondelegation issue. Learning Resources argues that the Court can avoid addressing this nondelegation issue by interpreting the IEEPA not to grant tariff authority.

    Learning Resources claims that, regardless of the interpretation of the IEEPA, the trade tariffs exceed the limits of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Learning Resources explains that Section 122 grants the President limited authority to impose tariffs to ameliorate trade deficits, and this grant of authority applies equally to nonemergency and emergency situations. Finally, Learning Resources contends that the President’s tariffs do not comply with the IEEPA’s requirement that presidential emergency actions directly deal with the threat because the tariffs relate to—but do not deal with—the trade deficits.

    President Trump argues that the IEEPA does not limit the scope of tariffs because although the IEEPA has enumerated limitations, which have been previously exercised by Congress and enforced by the courts, the IEEPA does not include an explicit limit on the power to impose tariffs. President Trump further contends that the application of the major questions doctrine to create a limitation is inappropriate because the doctrine is only intended to be used when statutory language is ambiguous. In President Trump’s reading of the IEEPA, the language is not ambiguous.  President Trump explains that the major questions doctrine does not allow courts to preeminently place “atextual limits” on a broad interpretation of a law. President Trump argues that because both the President and Congress hold foreign policy powers, the major questions doctrine cannot be applied to issues of foreign policy. Additionally, President Trump asserts that the nondelegation doctrine has minimal weight in foreign affairs because of the President’s Article II powers. President Trump explains that Congress may constitutionally grant the President significant discretion over matters concerning trade with other countries without violating the non-delegation doctrine.

    President Trump also argues that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 need not apply because separate statutes are meant to be read with a presumption that they can be valid at the same time. President Trump explains that IEEPA and the Trade Act of 1974 regulate different situations in which tariffs might be necessary, so it is legally sound for his tariffs to comply with one Act but not the other. President Trump argues that dealing with trade deficits can include imposing tariffs as a means of creating leverage to incentivize behavior that would improve the trade deficit. Further, President Trump, citing Trump v. Hawaii, argues that the President is given broad deference in foreign policy decisions, including methods for exerting leverage over other states.

    Discussion

    SEPARATION OF POWERS

    Consumer Watchdog, in support of Learning Resources, asserts that if the IEEPA authorizes emergency tariffs, the statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine. Consumer Watchdog explains that imposing tariffs does not fall under the President’s Article II foreign affairs power, but rather Congress’s Article I taxation power. Thus, Consumer Watchdog contends that authorizing President Trump’s tariffs under IEEPA would give the President a power reserved for the legislature. George F. Allen and other scholars (“Constitutional Scholars”) similarly argue that the President cannot circumvent Congress’s tax power by relating the tax to foreign affairs. Constitutional Scholars hold that because trade deficits do not constitute a true emergency, interpreting the IEEPA to grant tariff authority would also allow the President to override Congress’s tax power. Constitutional Scholars claim that invoking the emergency power without a true emergency or rapid change in circumstances would inflate the President’s power.

    Conversely, President Trump argues that interpreting the IEEPA to limit the President’s emergency powers would violate the separation of powers doctrine. President Trump explains that because the Federal Circuit held that the IEEPA might authorize some tariffs, but not those implemented here, affirming the lower court’s decision would limit the President’s power in a “know-it-when-you-see-it” way without textual support. The American Center for Law and Justice (“ACLJ”), in support of President Trump, contends that the judiciary must respect the President’s decisions on tariffs to preserve separation of powers.  The ACLJ explains that courts lack access to confidential information upon which the executive branch bases its foreign policy decisions, so courts’ overreach into executive decision-making for foreign policy is impractical and incongruous with the doctrine.

    FOREIGN RELATIONS AND TRADE STABILITY

    Crutchfield Corporation, in support of Learning Resources, argues that upholding the President’s tariffs would harm domestic retailers by making it impossible to plan for their businesses due to rapid changes in foreign affairs. Crutchfield Corporation characterizes the threat to American businesses as not only high tariffs and trade deficit, but the impact of the President’s unrestricted ability to impose tariffs based on international affairs. Constitutional Scholars emphasize that while the President’s Article II power may overlap with Congress’s tax power at wartime, the powers do not overlap in the case of ordinary trade. Constitutional Scholars argue that because Congress has long used tariffs as foreign policy tools, linking tariffs to foreign affairs does not justify transferring Congress’s taxing authority to the President.  

    President Trump counters that upholding the invalidation of the emergency tariffs would irreparably harm the United States’ foreign relations and trade with other countries. President Trump explains that if the Court decides the President lacks the authority under the IEEPA to impose emergency tariffs, other countries will perceive the United States as being unable to act quickly and decisively in the event of emergencies. President Trump also contends that the United States’ economy would decline due to its dependence on other countries’ exports. The ACLJ argues that judicial deference to the President in foreign affairs is essential for effective diplomacy because internationally, the President functions as the nation’s sole representative.  The ACLJ argues that because foreign affairs are complex and constantly changing. For this reason, ACLJ claims that the President needs broad discretion to address these unique practical challenges, which differ from those in domestic policy.

    Conclusion

    Authors

    Written by:Caroline “Kiki” Plowe and Quinn E. Ackerman

    Edited by:Alexandra Fertig

    Additional Resources