Supreme Court Decides Learning Resources, Inc., et al., v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.

On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc., et al., v. Trump, No. 24-1287, and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al., No. 25-250, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

In 2025, President Trump “sought to address two foreign threats”: an “influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico and China,” and “‘large and persistent’ trade deficits.” He “declared a national emergency as to both” threats. Invoking IEEPA, the President “imposed tariffs to deal with each threat.” The tariffs ranged from a 25% duty on most imports from Canada and Mexico to an “effective tariff rate on most Chinese goods” of 145%.

Two sets of plaintiffs challenged the President’s tariffs, one in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (Learning Resources) and the other in the US Court of International Trade (V.O.S.). The district court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the tariffs, and the Court of International Trade granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated both cases.

The Supreme Court held that the President’s authority to “regulate . . . importation” under IEEPA does not authorize him to impose tariffs. First, the Court observed that a tariff is a tax. And the Framers of the Constitution “did not vest any of the taxing power in the Executive Branch.” Under Article I, any bill raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives.

Next, the Court analyzed IEEPA’s text. The Act “authorizes the President to ‘investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.’” Missing from “this lengthy list of powers is any mention of tariffs or duties.” The Court rejected the argument that the word “regulate” includes the power to tax. Although taxes “may accomplish regulatory ends,” “it does not follow that the power to regulate something includes the power to tax it as a means of regulation.”

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson joined with respect to Parts I, II-A-1, and II-B. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts with respect to Parts II-A-2 and III. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett filed concurring opinions. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented.

For More Information

For further information, you may contact a member of our appeals and critical issues team or customs and international trade team.