The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined fully by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, and in part by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented.

The case originated from executive orders issued on February 2, 2025, imposing tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Trump declared national emergencies citing illegal drug influx and trade deficits, invoking IEEPA authority to impose the tariffs. Learning Resources and hand2mind, two educational toy companies importing goods from China, challenged the orders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A companion case, V.O.S. Selections v. United States, was brought by five small businesses and twelve states in the Court of International Trade.

Roberts wrote that the president had asserted “the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time” based on two words in IEEPA — “regulate” and “importation” — separated by sixteen other words. “Those words cannot bear such weight,” he stated. “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties.” The Court also noted that interpreting “regulate” to include taxation would render part of IEEPA unconstitutional, since the act authorizes regulation of exportation, and the Constitution prohibits export taxes.

The ruling invalidated tariffs estimated by Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists at $175 billion to$179 billion in collections. It did not affect tariffs imposed under other authorities, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which cover steel, aluminum, copper, automobiles, auto parts, lumber, semiconductors, and other goods. The Court did not address whether importers who had already paid the invalidated tariffs were entitled to refunds.

The case was argued on November 5, 2025, and decided on February 20, 2026.