| Learning Resources v. Trump Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 5, 2025 | |
| Full case name | Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. Donald J. Trump, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. |
| Docket nos. | 24-1287 25-250 |
| Questions presented | |
| 1. Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Pub. L. No. 95-223, Tit. II, 91 Stat. 1626, authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Trump pursuant to the national emergencies declared or continued in Proclamation 10,886 and Executive Orders 14,157, 14,193, 14,194, 14,195, and 14,257, as amended. 2. If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the President. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
Learning Resources v. Trump, andTrump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. is a consolidated case at theUnited States Supreme Court which will determine whether theInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)authorizes thesecond Trump administration to implementvarious tariffs byexecutive order, and if the IEEPA does authorize the tariffs, whether the IEEPA is anunconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch due to theTaxing and Spending Clause ofArticle One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution.
In February 2025, PresidentDonald Trump announced tariffs onCanada, Mexico, andChina, citing the IEEPA as the statutory authority for doing so. After implementing other tariffs citing different statutory authorities, Trump announced the globalLiberation Day tariffs also citing the IEEPA the following April. Multiple lawsuits from affected companies andU.S. states were filed shortly after this announcement, including bothLearning Resources andV.O.S. Selections challenging the president's authority to issue tariffs under IEEPA.
InLearning Resources, theDistrict Court for the District of Columbia ruled the tariffs were unconstitutional in May 2025. Though Trump appealed to theD.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs sought but failed to get expedited relief from the Supreme Court in early June. UnderTrump v. V.O.S. Selections, theUnited States Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in May 2025 that the president does not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs in this way, and permanently enjoined the government from enforcing them. The CIT's ruling was upheld on appeal by theen bancFederal Circuit Appeals Court in August 2025. In both cases, the lower courts stayed their injunctions to allow Trump to appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted both petitions in September, and expedited scheduling of oral arguments, which were heard on November 5, 2025. Court observers believed a majority of the justices expressed skepticism towards the government's rationale for the tariffs during the oral session.
.jpg)
During his 2024 presidential campaign,Donald Trump stated his intent to place heavy tariffs on China while applying tariffs to most other imports, asserting these were needed to have countries improve their efforts to stop illegal drugs likefentanyl into the U.S., as well as to stem the flow ofundocumented immigrants.[1] Trump likened the need for tariffs to recreate the successes of theGilded Age in the late 19th century underWilliam McKinley.[2]
Trump enacted executive orders 14193, 14194, and 14195 on February 2, 2025, for tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, respectively, citing his ability to do so under theInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).[3] On April 2, 2025, Trump announced further"Liberation Day" tariffs on many countries and products as part of Executive Order 14257 asserting his authority to do so under the IEEPA.[4] Trump argued that there were numeroustrade deficits that were unfair to the United States and threaten national security, and declared an economic emergency to justify the use of the IEEPA to correct them. Under the new tariff plan, nearly all incoming goods were set to a 10% tariff, with about sixty additional countries set at higher tariff rates. Further, Trump stated his intent to use "reciprocal tariffs" and raise the rates on any country which implemented their own tariffs on U.S. goods in response to the new tariff plan.[5][6] Trump had pushed for tariffs alongside his "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by Congress in July 2025 which significantly cut government revenue from taxes but with more government spending, with the tariffs intended to make up the difference.[7] The Trump administration has also said the tariffs would help deal with the $37 trillionfederal debt, and allows a point of leverage in foreign relations.[8][9] The tariffs did not come into effect until July 2025, during which the Trump administration securedtrade agreements with some countries including Japan and the European Union, reducing the tariff rate applied in exchange for either investments into the U.S. or importing more U.S. goods.[10]
The tariff plan was met with harsh criticism from multiple sectors. World leaders from multiple countries urged Trump to back off the tariff plan, with the European Union's presidentUrsula von der Leyen saying they would be a "major blow to the world economy".[11] Economic experts also were critical of the tariff plan with concerns on the flawed calculations used to justify the tariff rates.[12] Business lobbying groups including theUnited States Chamber of Commerce and theBusiness Roundtable sought relief from the Trump administration to lessen the impact of the tariffs on businesses.[13] Small businesses were hardest hit by the tariffs; compared to large companies that had sufficient on-hand capital to stock up on imports prior to enforcement of the tariffs, many small businesses had little leeway to prepare, and many had to cut back on profit and plans for expansion due to the tariffs.[14]
Multiple lawsuits were filed in wake of Trump's Liberation Day tariff announcement, but theV.O.S. Selections was one of the first filed and had progressed the farthest;[13] James Fanelli ofThe Wall Street Journal said "Other challenges have been filed in the court and in federal district courts around the country, but theV.O.S. case is front and center so far."[15] In addition toLearning Resources andV.O.S. Selections, there were other similar lawsuits. In April 2025, twelve states led by Oregon filed a similar suit within the Court of International Trade, arguing that Trump did not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs.[16] The states' case was consolidated with that from the Liberty Justice Center.[15]
These cases do not challenge another route for the president to set tariffs under Section 232 of theTrade Expansion Act, which allows the president to establish tariffs in the interest of national security. Trump has used this during his second administration to set tariffs on aluminum and steel imports, among other goods.[17]
On April 22, 2025, Learning Resources and hand2mind, two family-owned educational toy manufacturers, sued Trump in theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia.[18] In an interview withCBS News, Learning Resources' chief executive, Rick Woldenberg, argued that Trump's tariffs would negatively affect his business and the U.S. economy,[19] citing that their costs to tariffs had risen by a 44-fold increase.[18]
A coalition of experts filed an amici curiae brief in support of the plaintiff forLearning Resources, in addition to a similar one forV.O.S. Selections, stating "The powers to tax, to regulate commerce, and to shape the nation's economic course must remain with Congress. They cannot drift silently into the hands of the President through inertia, inattention, or creative readings of statutes never meant to grant such authority. That conviction is not partisan. It is constitutional. And it strikes at the heart of this case."[20][21] The brief, co-authored byMichael W. McConnell andJoshua Claybourn, brought together "big-name constitutional law scholars across the political spectrum" according toReason, and included legal scholarsSteven Calabresi,Harold Koh,Richard Epstein, Michael W. McConnell, andGerard Magliocca, and former government officialsMichael Mukasey,George Allen, andChuck Hagel.[20] The filing, dubbed the McConnell/Claybourn brief,[22] was cited byVox as one of the plaintiffs' two significant advantages, noting that co-signerJohn Danforth is a mentor to JusticeClarence Thomas and gave Thomas his first job out of law school.[23] According toAdam Liptak ofThe New York Times, the amici brief was considered instrumental in the case's proceedings.[24] McConnell would later transition to serve as counsel to the plaintiffs inV.O.S. Selections.
JudgeRudolph Contreras ruled on May 29, 2025, that Trump's tariffs were unlawful, but limited his order to the plaintiffs and delayed it until an appeal could be heard.[25] Trump appealed to theD.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by June 3, leading judge Contreras to extend the stay on his order while the case was litigated there.[18]
While the case progressed in the appeals court, Learning Resources filed for a motion to expedite directly to theSupreme Court, bypassing the appeals court, along with a writ ofcertiorari on June 18, 2025.[26] The Supreme Court rejected the expedited request two days later without comment.[27] In July, solicitor generalD. John Sauer argued that the justices "should not leapfrog" the proceedings in the appeals court.[28]
InV.O.S. Selections, the plaintiffs, consisting of five small businesses which were facing potential bankruptcy due to the tariffs, filed suit against the government on April 14, 2025, in theUnited States Court of International Trade, a judicial venue for civil actions related to the government's trade regulations. The businesses were represented by theLiberty Justice Center andIlya Somin, a law professor atGeorge Mason University.[29][30][31] The plaintiffs argued that the administration had improperly used the IEEPA to impose tariffs that were not authorized by that law.[32] Somin said that while the IEEPA had previously been used by other presidents in sanctions against other countries or to freeze assets of foreign terrorists, no previous president used the law to simply set tariff rate, and that Trump's imposition of the tariffs was "an enormous abuse of power, and it still needs to be stopped".[32][33] Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel atLiberty Justice Center said:[34]
Our system is not set up so that one person in the system can have the power to impose taxes across the world economy. That’s not how ourconstitutional republic works...
The Court denied a motion for a temporary restraining order on April 25, 2025, but ordered the Trump administration to respond to the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment. The Court set a briefing schedule and hearing to rule on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the Liberation Day tariffs.[15]
The three judge panel, consisting of judgesTimothy Reif (a Trump appointment),Gary Katzmann (an Obama appointment), andJane Restani (a Reagan appointee), heard the case on May 13, 2025.[35][36][37] Plaintiffs were represented by Jeffrey M. Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center, while Eric J. Hamilton of the U.S.Department of Justice defended the government's position.[38][39]
The Trump administration argued that federal courts upheld use of theTrading with the Enemy Act of 1917, to which the IEEPA was an amendment, by theNixon administration in response to theeconomic impact from the ending of theBretton Woods system in August 1971.[40]
The three-judge panel granted plaintiffssummary judgment on May 28, 2025, permanently enjoining the government from enforcing the tariffs. The court ruled that the IEEPA does not delegate power from Congress to the president to create tariffs in this way.[41] The panel's opinion explained its ruling that while the president may at times of emergency be given limited powers within the statute to set tariffs, this does not grant the office the "unlimited tariff authority" that Trump had claimed the IEEPA granted, nor could the Congress delegate such unlimited power under the Constitution.[42]
The opinion stated that Congress could only delegate tariff powers to the president if that delegation includes "an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such [tariff] rates is directed to conform"; if the IEEPA was intended to give the president broad tariff powers, then the court would have found the IEEPA unconstitutional as it lacked any specific conditions and limitations for that delegation.[42]
A second factor stated by the opinion is that the president's power to set tariffs to address trade deficits is circumscribed under theTrade Act of 1974, but only at a maximum rate of 15% and for a maximum of 150 days.[42] A third point raised by the opinion countered the rationale given by Trump to fight the "unusual and extraordinary threat" of illegal drug trade into the U.S., and held that none of the tariffs issued by Trump did anything to stop drugs from entering the U.S, and rejected Trump's argument that other nations would be incentivized to stop drug trade to the U.S. to remove the tariffs.[42]
The Trump administration appealed to theCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and requested astay of the permanent injunction.[43] The circuit court granted the government's motion to stay, while also ordering an expediteden banc hearing on the substantive issues in the case on July 31, 2025, with additional briefings on the merits.[44]
At the hearing on July 31, journalists observed that some of the judges seemed skeptical of the arguments advanced by the administration's lawyers.[45][46]D. John Sauer, theSolicitor General, filed an additional submission with the court after the hearing, stating that if the tariffs were overturned, the result would be an economic depression on par with the1929 depression, jeopardizing social programs such as Social Security and Medicare and requiring the federal government to repay trillions of dollars to foreign countries.[47][48]
On August 29, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed thesummary judgment of the Court of International Trade in aper curiam opinion ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority under the IEEPA, that establishing tariffs was a power controlled only by Congress, and that the president's approach raised issues under the Supreme Court'smajor questions doctrine.[49] In its reasons, theper curiam opinion stated that: "...the President has departed from the established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade."[50]
While aper curiam decision, four out of the eleven judges on the court joined in dissent, with judgeRichard G. Taranto writing thedissenting opinion joined by chief judgeKimberly Moore and judgesSharon Prost andRaymond Chen. Taranto said "IEEPA embodies an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm, which unsurprisingly extends beyond authorities available under non-emergency laws, and Congress confirmed the understood breadth by tying IEEPA’s authority to particularly demanding procedural requirements for keeping Congress informed."[49][51]
The ruling invalidated the executive orders establishing thetariffs against Canada and Mexico as well as theLiberation Day tariffs, but did not involve tariffs on steel, copper, and aluminum that were placed under Section 232 of theTrade Expansion Act of 1962. The case was remanded to the Court of International Trade to determine remedies.[51] The appeals court imposed astay of execution through October 14 to allow the administration to appeal to theU.S. Supreme Court.[52][40] Trump argued on social media that the ruling, if allowed to stand, "would literally destroy the United States of America" and vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court to overrule.[6]
Within a week of theen banc Federal Circuit decision fromV.O.S. Selections, the administration formally requested an expedited ruling from the Supreme Court.[53][54] The Court accepted the case on September 9, 2025, consolidating it with the pending petition fromLearning Resources. The case was later scheduled to be heard November 5, 2025.[55][56] Ahead of the oral hearings, analysts said this case was one of the first major tests at the Supreme Court on the limits of Trump's claims of executive power during his second term; the court had previous issued orders from theemergency docket favorable to Trump, but the tariff case brings in issues related to the principles of non-delegation and the major questions doctrine which conservative justices have written in favor of in prior cases.[57]
The small businesses challenging the tariffs said in their filings that the tariffs are unconstitutional as the word "tariff" does not appear at all in the IEEPA, nor does any other congressional statute that gives the executive the power to regulate importation the ability to impose taxes, in addition to addressing the major questions doctrine and non-delegation principles. The Trump administration argued in their filings that the language of IEEPA "plainly" gives the president the ability to set tariffs as a means of regulating imports. The administration also argued that, counter to the Federal Circuit court's finding, that tariff powers given to the president under IEEPA are not unlimited, with tariffs limited to a maximum of one year and overridable through Congress. Further, the administration argued that the major question doctrine should not apply to matters of foreign affairs and national security.[58]
Merits briefs were filed by 44 groups of amici curiae: 37 in support of the challengers, 6 in support of the government, and 1 in support of neither.[59] The case drew fewer amicus briefs than other recent high-profile cases—and most sided with the challengers rather than the government. Many of the briefs opposing the Trump administration came from conservative groups, an unusual state according toSCOTUSblog.[60]
The Washington Post'sGeorge Will identified six amicus briefs that emphasized the separation-of-powers concerns and question whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose broad revenue-raising tariffs without clear congressional direction.[61] TheGoldwater Institute argues that whether an "emergency" exists under IEEPA is a justiciable question and that chronic trade imbalances and drug trafficking do not qualify as the kind of "sudden, unforeseen, extraordinary" emergencies that justify extraordinary powers; it also urges a clear-statement rule for delegations of taxing power.[61][62] TheBrennan Center for Justice contends that IEEPA was crafted to provide only a "temporary boost" in crisis, not a backdoor to unreviewable, open-ended tariff authority; it maintains that if Congress can address a condition through ordinary legislation, the condition is not an "emergency."[61][63] A coalition of economists asserts that, even assuming IEEPA permitted tariffs, such tariffs are unlikely to "deal with" trade deficits as the statute requires; over the last half-century, deficits have been common among many nations and the net effects of tariffs on trade balances are typically small.[61][64]
Most of the same bipartisan group of legal scholars and former officials that had signed onto the McConnell/Claybourn brief used in the lower rulings, argued in their amicus brief that Congress never intended IEEPA to serve as a "backdoor" for executive taxation or large-scale economic restructuring, noting that the statute authorizes several specific actions but never mentions taxes or tariffs.[61][65] TheInstitute for Policy Integrity (NYU School of Law) focuses on the major-questions doctrine, arguing that the asserted IEEPA tariff power is “unheralded,” “transformative,” and of vast economic and political significance, and therefore cannot be inferred absent a clear statement from Congress.[61][66]Cato Institute researchers dispute the administration’s policy justifications, noting that since IEEPA’s enactment in 1977 the United States has negotiated numerous trade agreements without resort to IEEPA-based tariffs and that claimed diplomatic necessity does not supply missing statutory authority.[61][67]
Michael W. McConnell andNeal Katyal represented the businesses in V.O.S. Selections, Prakit Shah represented those inLearning Resources,[68] Katyal delivered the oral argument for all of the private businesses, andOregon Solicitor General Ben Gutman argued for theU.S. state parties.[69] Sauer presented the U.S. government's case.[70]
Trump had previously stated that he may attend the oral arguments, which would make him the first incumbent president to ever attend oral arguments before the Supreme Court,[71] but in the days ahead, said he would not attend, stating "I just don't want to do anything to deflect the importance of that decision. It's not about me, it's about our country."[72]
Journalists hearing the orals said it appeared likely that the tariffs would be ruled unconstitutional, with both conservative and liberal justices questioning whether IEEPA allowed for the president to set tariffs.Both Neil Gorsuch and Amy Comey Barrett raised questions on the non-delegation principle, with Gorsuch saying it would be a "one way ratchet" of Congressional power to the president if the tariffs were upheld.[73] Both Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas had said that the Court may be treading on presidential power by overruling his tariffs.[74]
The impact of the ruling, if upheld by the Supreme Court, is unclear, as it would threaten the basis of the trade deals made with other countries, and there could be extensive litigation from companies seeking recovery of the tariffs they had paid the government since the onset of the tariffs.[10] The fate of the estimated $90 billion in tariffs collected by September 2025 is also unclear if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, whether some or all of the tariffs would be repaid to importers.[75] At least one scholar noted inLawfare that "[c]ourts have long recognized that when duties or tariffs are later invalidated, the government cannot lawfully retain those amounts."[76]
The Trump administration has said that if the IEEPA route is struck down by the Supreme Court, they will implement tariffs through other methods that are explicitly granted to the president via congressional acts. One route includes Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows the president to set tariffs on imports of specific goods in the matter of national security (which Trump had already used in his second term for steel and aluminum imports), while another is through Section 301 of theTrade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs to be applied if the rights of the U.S. are being impacted by a foreign power in an existing trade pact. Both require the Commerce Department to make an assessment of the need for the tariffs before they can be applied, and have shorter allowed durations compared to the actions allowed by the president under IEEPA.[77]
