As summarized in Dykema’s December 2025 edition, the Supreme Court heard oral argument this fall in two consolidated cases (Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. VOS Selections) that presented the question of whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs. In a 6-3 decision out last month, the Supreme Court held that it does not.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts began by emphasizing that the Constitution grants the power to tax to the Legislative Branch and explaining that the power to tariff is synonymous with the power to tax. The Court then held that, while IEEPA authorizes the President to regulate importation or exportation, it does not explicitly delegate to the President the power to impose tariffs or duties. The Court disagreed with the Government’s argument that IEEPA’s use of the words “regulate” and “importation” accomplished this delegation, reasoning that this interpretation would grant the President too much deference and allow imposition of taxes based on an “unreviewable” Presidential declaration of emergency. The Court also noted that, where Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so explicitly and with strict limitations.

Although six Justices agreed with this bottom-line interpretation of IEEPA, there was much disagreement between the Justices about whether, or how, the “major questions” doctrine supported that outcome. The portion of Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion that relied on that doctrine as further support for the Court’s holding was joined only by Justices Barrett and Gorsuch. In a concurrence joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, Justice Kagan asserted that there was no need to apply the doctrine because “straight-up statutory construction” dictated the result. And, despite them both joining the entirety of Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion, Justices Gorsuch and Barrett sparred in separate concurrences over the correct framework for the doctrine. Finally, in a dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the doctrine should not apply to statutes involving foreign affairs (like IEEPA).

In his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh also asserted that the Court’s decision will not prevent the President from imposing tariffs using different statutes and will result in billions of dollars in refunds, which will significantly impact the Treasury. And, in a separate dissent for himself, Justice Thomas turned to historical evidence as support for his view that Congress could properly delegate the power to enact tariffs to the President—and did so in IEEPA.

In the wake of this decision, it has been reported that thousands of companies, including Costco, Goodyear, and FedEx, have filed lawsuits seeking refunds for IEEPA tariffs they paid.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Andrew VanEgmond, Monika Harris, or David Ter-Petrosyan.