Learning Resources v. Trump

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President of the United States to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Constitution exclusively vests the power to lay and collect taxes, including the power to impose tariffs, in Congress. Because the Executive Branch enjoys no inherent authority to impose peacetime tariffs, any presidential power to do so must come from a clear congressional delegation. IEEPA grants the President authority to "regulate" the "importation" of goods during a national emergency, but this general regulatory power does not include the distinct and extraordinary power to tax. While taxes can accomplish regulatory goals, the everyday power to regulate commerce remains entirely separate from the power to raise revenue. The broader statutory text and congressional practice confirm that IEEPA lacks an implicit delegation of the taxing power. When Congress delegates the authority to impose customs duties—a federal tax levied on imported goods—it consistently uses explicit terms like "duty" or "surcharge" and imposes strict procedural limits. IEEPA lists nine specific actions the President may take regarding foreign commerce, such as investigating or prohibiting transactions, but notably omits any mention of tariffs or revenue-raising measures. Furthermore, interpreting the statute to allow taxation renders it partly unconstitutional, as IEEPA authorizes the President to regulate both importation and exportation, and the Constitution expressly forbids taxing exports. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion arguing that the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for extraordinary assertions of executive power, protects the constitutional separation of powers. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a concurring opinion asserting that the major questions doctrine operates as an ordinary application of textualism that uses constitutional context to ascertain a statute's most natural meaning. Justice Elena Kagan authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that ordinary tools of statutory interpretation easily resolve the dispute without invoking the major questions doctrine. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment emphasizing that legislative history proves Congress intended IEEPA only to authorize the freezing of foreign-owned property. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion arguing that the constitutional nondelegation doctrine does not apply to foreign commerce, allowing Congress to freely delegate tariff-making powers. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that historical practice, precedent, and the ordinary meaning of the word "regulate" establish that IEEPA authorizes presidential tariffs.