On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections (consolidated as No. 24-1287) to consider whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose trade tariffs pursuant to declared national emergencies. If the Court concludes that the tariffs are statutorily authorized, the Justices will then decide whether the tariffs constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the President. So far, this is the most important case the Justices have agreed to hear this term.

According to the President, the Nation’s trade deficits have “compromised U.S. economic security by rendering U.S. supply chains vulnerable to geographic disruption and supply shock.” The President has stated that this imbalance in trade between the United States and foreign nations has compromised the Nation’s military readiness. Consequently, invoking his authority over military and foreign affairs, the President declared a national emergency regarding “goods trade deficits” on April 2, 2025. The President’s tariffs included a minimum 10 percent tariff on most imported goods, with higher tariff rates imposed on certain countries based on additional considerations. For example, the President placed additional tariffs on Chinese and Mexican imports to address the flow of fentanyl into the United States. The President argues that these tariffs are a lawful means of regulating importation under the IEEPA and that they are reasonably tailored to address national emergencies. The President also argues that the Executive’s determinations regarding what is or is not an unusual and extraordinary threat are committed to executive discretion and are not subject to judicial scrutiny.

The parties opposing the President’s position argue that the Constitution vests the tariff power in Congress alone, and that Congress has granted the President only limited authority to set tariff rates. They contend that while the IEEPA allows the President to regulate importation or exportation to address unusual and extraordinary threats, that authority does not extend to the imposition of broad or unlimited tariffs. They also argue that the tariffs do not address any unusual or extraordinary threat and that, even if such a threat existed, the tariffs bear no sufficient nexus to the President’s asserted national security concerns.

In Learning Resources, a case brought by a children’s toy manufacturer, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the President’s argument that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and denied the President’s request to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade. The district court held that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs and granted a preliminary injunction. The case was fast-tracked for review by the Justices, without first being heard and ruled on by the court of appeals. In VOS Selections, litigation brought by a group of small businesses and a dozen states, the Court of International Trade declared the tariffs unlawful, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment en banc (7-4).

During oral argument, Justice Gorsuch questioned the Solicitor General regarding the outer limits of the President’s authority, asking whether the President could impose a tariff on gas-powered automobiles to address an “unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change.” Justice Thomas asked why the major questions doctrine (MQD) would not apply to the President in this case. (MQD is the idea that if Congress wants to give a federal agency the authority to make decisions with “vast economic and political significance,” it must clearly say so.) Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether tariffs should be considered a matter of foreign affairs, traditionally committed to the Executive, while Justice Sotomayor inquired about the distinction between tariffs and taxes, noting that both generate revenue for the government.

So the key focus for the Court and the parties seems to be whether there is a national emergency that triggers the President’s authority under the statute. On that note, the government argues that courts should not have the power to review such determinations because “[j]udges lack the institutional competence to determine when foreign affairs pose an unusual and extraordinary threat that requires an emergency response; that is a task” for Congress and the President. What will be interesting to see is if former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s “blank check” reasoning comes into play here. Writing for the Court in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice O’Connor said that “a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.” Her powerful statement is foundational to the Court’s majority opinion in that case, which held that the executive branch does not have unlimited authority during wartime. Then again, the cases now before the Court do not involve a wartime situation.

The Court’s decision is expected later this term. Stay tuned for Dykema’s decision alert discussing the Court’s forthcoming opinion and its implications for executive authority and trade regulation.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Mark Magyar, or David Ter-Petrosyan.