Supreme Court showdown on tariffs shaping up as landmark case

On Nov. 5, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that may decide the fate of President Donald Trump’s tariff policy.

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Justices will decide if a specific act of Congress allows the president to impose tariffs, and if the act itself unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the president.

The act in question, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), is one of six statutory provisions currently in place that control how the president and the executive branch can use tariffs, with powers granted to it by Congress. Three provisions require federal agency investigations before a tariff can be imposed. The other provisions, including the IEEPA, do not require an investigation before actions are taken.

The IEEPA allows the president to declare an emergency under the National Emergency Act (NEA) and then use his extensive economic powers under the Act to regulate or prohibit imports. The Congressional Research Service says that Trump was the first chief executive to use it for this purpose, when in February 2025 he announced tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. The emergency stated by the president can be terminated at his request, or by a joint resolution of Congress.

A Brief History of Tariffs

Tariffs are a form of taxes placed by the federal government on imported goods and services. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 defines the powers of Congress. It states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, … but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

The president does not have the direct power to set or impose tariffs on nations that trade with the United States and can only take such action if a law is passed by Congress granting him such powers.

The first major law passed by the First Congress in 1789 dealt with tariffs. Tariffs quickly became the main source of the federal government’s revenue until the Civil War, when treasury notes and a wartime income tax supplemented the federal government’s income. After the war, tariffs reassumed their role as a chief revenue source.

The establishment of a federal income tax in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment started the process of diminishing the need for tariffs as a primary federal government revenue source. Since the 1930s, Congress has delegated tasks such as setting tariff rates to the chief executive as part of his foreign policy and trade negotiation duties.

The Arguments at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted review of the cases on Sept. 9, 2025, placing them on a fast track for arguments. In the petition from Learning Resources Inc., it claimed that “until now, no president in IEEPA’s nearly 50-year history has ever invoked it to impose tariffs—let alone the sweeping worldwide tariffs imposed pursuant to the executive orders challenged.”

Learning Resources imports directly from China and other countries subject to IEEPA tariffs. It claimed that attempting to pay the IEEPA tariffs in 2025 would cost it $100 million in cash, compared with $2.3 million in 2024.

“IEEPA does not give the president the vast power he has seized. IEEPA does not mention the word ‘tariff’ or ‘tax,’ and no other president in its nearly 50-year history has ever relied on it for tariffing power,” it argued.

The V.O.S. Selections case arrived at the Supreme Court as a petition from the Justice Department. A group of importers joined by 12 states sued about the IEEPA tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which sided with importers and states. In a 7-4 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declared that the president’s use of IEEPA tariffs was unlawful.

From those two cases came the two questions accepted by the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the IEEPA and the president’s ability to levy tariffs based on the act.

The Non-Delegation and Major Questions Doctrines

In a brief from Solicitor General D. John Sauer, he stated the president’s IEEPA tariffs “are plainly lawful. Congress has long granted the president broad authority to employ tariffs to address emergencies.”

Among the arguments offered by Sauer was that a Supreme Court precedent, the major-questions doctrine, was not relevant to President Trump’s tariffs. Although derived from earlier cases, the doctrine was first stated in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). As the Congressional Research Service explains, the Court considers the doctrine “in cases where there is something extraordinary about the ‘history and breadth of the authority’ an agency asserts or the ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion, however, the Court indicated courts should ‘hesitate before concluding that Congress meant to confer such authority.’”

Sauer believed the federal appeals court misapplied the doctrine to the IEEPA tariffs case. “That IEEPA addresses foreign-policy emergencies —the most major of major questions—underscores why ‘common sense as to the manner in which Congress would have been likely to delegate’ such power” to the president counsels a broad reading of the statutory delegation,” he said, citing the West Virginia decision.

Sauer also dismissed that the IEEPA tariffs violated another Court precedent, the non-delegation doctrine. That doctrine considers how much of its own authority Congress can grant to the president. It goes back to the time of Chief Justice John Marshall. In Wayman v. Southard (1825), Marshall noted that Congress could not delegate powers “that are strictly and exclusively legislative.” But Congress had the ability to grant other powers as needed, and the Court has rarely used the doctrine to strike down congressional delegations of power to the president.

Sauer cited a concurring opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh in FCC v. Consumers Research (2025) that the non-delegation doctrine lacked traction in foreign affairs. “[I]n the national security and foreign policy realms, the nondelegation doctrine (whatever its scope with respect to domestic legislation) appropriately has played an even more limited role in light of the president’s constitutional responsibilities and independent Article II authority,” he concluded.

In a brief from Learning Services, its attorneys argue that both doctrines apply to the IEEPA tariffs case; they also cited a significant Supreme Court decision, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) as related to the IEEPA tariffs. “When the president assumes powers ‘the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress and not to the president, deference is afforded only so long as the president acts under the authorization of Congress,’” the brief notes, referring to Justice Robert Jackson’s famous concurring opinion in Youngstown. “The president enjoys deference in his exercise of Congress’s tariff power only if Congress, in fact, delegated that power to the president. That is where the major questions doctrine comes in.”

The Learning Services brief is also skeptical that the non-delegation doctrine does not apply to Trump’s tariffs. “The Government’s interpretation triggers non-delegation doctrine concerns as well. Had Congress granted the president the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs that remake the national economy, without any restrictions beyond the president’s (assertedly unreviewable) power to declare an ‘emergency,’ then that grant of authority would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power,” it concludes.

There are other arguments in the briefs from both sides and from numerous friends of the court briefs, but it is expected the Justices’ interpretation of the major-questions and non-delegation doctrines will take center stage during 80 minutes of scheduled oral arguments on Nov. 5, 2025.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.