The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, in Learning Resources v. Trump that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion invoked the major-questions doctrine to limit executive power over taxation, while concurring liberal justices emphasized statutory text and legislative history. The decision, expedited due to ongoing tariff revenue collection, spares some targeted duties but introduces uncertainty amid Trump's vows for alternatives.
The case stemmed from Trump's economic agenda following his inauguration, which he termed 'Liberation Day.' He invoked the 1977 IEEPA, declaring national emergencies over trade imbalances, fentanyl smuggling, and other issues. This enabled a 10% baseline tariff on goods from most countries, higher reciprocal tariffs based on trade deficits, 25% to 35% duties on imports from Canada and Mexico related to drug trafficking, and up to 145% on most Chinese goods. Businesses, including Learning Resources and Costco, challenged the tariffs, arguing they raised import prices and unlawfully bypassed Congress's taxing authority under Article I of the Constitution.
Roberts' majority opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, held that IEEPA's provision to 'regulate … importation' during emergencies does not authorize tariffs or taxes—a power reserved to Congress. The chief justice applied the major-questions doctrine, requiring explicit congressional authorization for such significant actions, and noted the absence of procedural limits typical in tariff statutes. 'When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither here,' Roberts wrote.
A split emerged in the majority: Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett relied on the major-questions doctrine, while the liberal justices declined to join that portion. Justice Kagan, in a concurrence joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, argued the case could be resolved through textualism alone, noting IEEPA 'says nothing about imposing taxes or tariffs.' She cited dictionary definitions of 'regulate' excluding revenue-raising measures and referenced legislative history in a footnote as 'yet more proof' of the statute's narrow scope. Justice Jackson joined Kagan's opinion but wrote separately, prioritizing legislative history and examining IEEPA's predecessor, the Trading With the Enemy Act, where similar language targeted asset freezes, not taxation. She critiqued 'pure textualism' as 'incessantly malleable' and urged discerning 'what Congress wanted,' referencing her prior dissent in Stanley v. City of Sanford.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented. Kavanaugh argued tariffs traditionally regulate imports and suggested alternatives like the Trade Act of 1974 (sections 122, 201, 301), Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Tariff Act of 1930 section 338, though requiring more steps. He warned of chaos from refunding over $130 billion already collected.
Trump responded at a White House press conference, calling the ruling 'deeply disappointing' and labeling opposing justices 'fools and lapdogs' influenced by partisanship—despite including his appointees Gorsuch and Barrett. He praised Kavanaugh's dissent and announced plans for an executive order imposing a 10% global tariff under other authorities.
The ruling spares tariffs like those on steel and aluminum under Section 232 but halts most others, underscoring the Court's check on executive overreach amid reported threats from Trump. Former Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli praised it as reflecting judicial independence, preventing a 'wholesale transfer of a massive amount of power.' A Congressional Budget Office report estimated the tariffs would have reduced the deficit by $3 trillion over a decade, though largely borne by U.S. consumers. Sen. Mitch McConnell hailed Congress's reaffirmed role in trade, while Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warned of a potential $2 trillion deficit increase without addressing refunds.
