The Supreme Court Confronts Presidential Power: Inside Today’s Tariff Argument in Learning Resources v. Trump

By Arjan Bir Sodhi | Lex Republica Legal Commentary Team.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in one of the most consequential separation-of-powers cases in modern trade law. The dispute, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, challenges the legality of former President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At its heart, the case asks whether a president can use emergency economic powers to levy broad tariffs without explicit congressional approval.

The Core Question: Can IEEPA Support Tariff Authority?

The government's stance, as put forth by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is that the president has the authority to "regulate importation" of technology, goods, and services in the event of a national emergency under the provisions of IEEPA. This point of view holds that tariffs are just one type of regulation.

Neal Katyal, the challengers' attorney, contends that tariffs are "taxation" rather than "regulation." They stress that Congress, not the executive branch, retains the authority to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. They point out that IEEPA was created as a tool to punish hostile actors or stop urgent threats to national security, not as a way to raise money or balance trade.

The Justices’ Skepticism: Tariffs as Taxes, Not Tools

Following a textualist approach, Justice Neil Gorsuch concentrated on the statute's provision permitting regulation "by licenses or otherwise." He raised a hypothetical question: could the president simply rename duties as "importation licenses" and get around Congress if he has the authority to impose tariffs? His worry highlighted how broad the executive's claim could be.

“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax. And you want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch followed a textualist path, focusing on the statute’s clause that allows regulation “by licenses or otherwise.” He posed a hypothetical: if the president can impose tariffs, could he just re-label duties as “importation licenses” and circumvent Congress? His concern underscored the potential breadth of the executive’s claim.

The Major Questions Doctrine Looms Large

Beneath the statutory parsing lay a broader constitutional question. If IEEPA is interpreted to allow the president to reshape global trade through unilateral tariffs, does that delegation cross into unconstitutional territory? Several Justices appeared inclined to think so

Justice Barrett suggested that allowing such authority without clear congressional direction would violate the major questions doctrine, which holds that agencies or executives need explicit authorization to make major policy decisions of vast economic significance. Justice Gorsuch framed the concern more structurally, asking whether Congress could meaningfully limit presidential power if such a reading of IEEPA prevailed.

National Emergency or Policy Preference?

By citing a "national emergency" stemming from trade deficits, fentanyl imports, and border migration, the administration justified its use of IEEPA. Although these conditions are serious, the challengers argued that they do not represent the "unusual and extraordinary threat" that the statute requires. The Justices' interrogation revealed apprehension about considering long-term economic circumstances as emergency triggers.

The parameters of what constitutes a "emergency" for the purposes of assigning extraordinary powers may be defined by this discussion. Future administrations may not be able to use emergency declarations to accomplish regular policy goals if the Court sets a clear boundary.

The Separation-of-Powers Stakes

The implications of Learning Resources reach far beyond tariffs. If the Court accepts the government’s reading, it effectively transfers one of Congress’s core fiscal powers to the presidency. If it rejects that reading, it could reaffirm congressional primacy in trade and taxation while reinforcing limits on emergency powers.

For constitutional lawyers, this case mirrors earlier watershed moments in separation-of-powers jurisprudence, from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) to West Virginia v. EPA (2022). It tests the tension between executive flexibility and legislative control in economic governance.

Reading the Room: A Likely Narrowing of Executive Authority

Today’s argument hinted at a majority skeptical of the administration’s expansive claims. While the Court might avoid striking down IEEPA itself, it appears poised to interpret the statute narrowly restricting “regulate importation” to licensing or control measures, not revenue-raising tariffs.

If that outcome materializes, Learning Resources will join a growing line of cases reasserting judicial boundaries on delegated power and reinforcing Congress’s constitutional role over taxation and trade.

Why It Matters

The case serves as a reminder to practitioners of how emergency statutes can be abused to support broad executive action. It provides academics with an up-close look at how the doctrine of the major questions is developing. Additionally, it represents a constitutional juncture for the Republic between legislative accountability and executive expediency.

The Court's ruling, which is anticipated in early 2026, will impact not only the tariffs' outcome but also the distribution of economic power between the president and Congress.