Oral Arguments Heard in Trump v. Learning Resources as Justices Question Scope of President’s Tariff Powers

The much-anticipated oral arguments in the Trump tariff cases have now been heard, and Justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s assertion of broad executive authority with respect to tariffs.

The case, Learning Resources v. Trump, will determine whether President Trump’s recent utilization of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) to implement tariffs is permissible. The Court also will address whether the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the President. Since the IEEPA’s passage in 1977, President Trump is the only President to attempt to exercise tariff authority under the statute.

Specifically, earlier this year, President Trump issued five executive orders that imposed duties on various trade partners of the United States in response to a claimed national emergency related to foreign trade and economic practices.

During the argument, several Justices expressed skepticism about the IEEPA expanding the President’s powers to encompass the ability to set tariffs. Some questions were devoted to Presidential power, and dove into the unanswered question of whether the major questions doctrine, which requires clear language from Congress when delegating significant power to the executive branch, applies to the President in the context of foreign affairs.

However, a majority of the Court’s questioning was focused on the statutory language itself. Special attention was given to deciding what Congress meant by use of the term “regulate importation” in the IEEPA, and whether this language gave the President power to implement tariffs. While the statute allows the President to “issue … instructions, licenses or otherwise,” to “investigate, regulate or prohibit” imports of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest” during a declared national emergency, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Barrett underscored the absence of “tariffs,” “duties” or “taxes” in the IEEPA’s language.

Additionally, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor, with their questions, characterized the power to impose tariffs as fundamentally a power to tax, a power which is reserved to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Both Justices highlighted that tariffs generate revenue from American citizens and thus implicate the core taxing authority of Congress.

While difficult questions were pressed upon the Solicitor General, Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito focused their time questioning counsel for the challengers (small businesses and states). All three Justices appeared open to the idea that the tariffs fall within the power delegated to the President under the IEEPA. 

The Supreme Court expedited oral argument in this case and is expected to expedite its decision. Of particular interest are the practical implications of invalidating the tariffs, including the complexity of potentially reimbursing the billions of dollars in duties that have been, and continue to be, collected. The outcome here will surely inform how companies grappling with these tariffs should proceed. If the President has the power to impose tariffs then businesses should factor this in when making supply chain and sourcing decisions. If this power remains with Congress then there may be less of a need to domesticate certain business operations in an attempt to establish a sense of predictability and avoid the uncertainty of tariffs that can be imposed at the discretion of the President.