The following is a portion of the Supreme Court decision invalidating most of Trump’s tariffs …………………..

(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2025
Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. TRUMP,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 24–1287. Argued November 5, 2025—Decided February 20, 2026*

The question presented is whether the International Emergency Eco
nomic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.
See 91 Stat. 1626. Shortly after taking office, President Trump sought
to address two foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada,
Mexico, and China, Presidential Proclamation No. 10886, 90 Fed. Reg.
8327; Exec. Order No. 14193, 90 Fed. Reg. 9113; Exec. Order No.
14194, 90 Fed. Reg. 9117; Exec. Order No. 14195, 90 Fed. Reg. 9121,
and “large and persistent” trade deficits, Exec. Order No. 14257, 90
Fed. Reg. 15041. The President determined that the drug influx had
“created a public health crisis,” 90 Fed. Reg. 9113, and that the trade
deficits had “led to the hollowing out” of the American manufacturing
base and “undermined critical supply chains,” id., at 15041. The Pres
ident declared a national emergency as to both threats, deeming them
“unusual and extraordinary,” and invoked his authority under IEEPA
to respond.

He imposed tariffs to deal with each threat. As to the drug trafficking tariffs, the President imposed a 25% duty on most Canadian and
Mexican imports and a 10% duty on most Chinese imports. Id., at
9114, 9118, 9122–9123. As to the trade deficit (“reciprocal”) tariffs, the
President imposed a duty “on all imports from all trading partners” … Petitioners in Learning Resources and respondents in V.O.S. Selections filed suit, alleging that IEEPA does not authorize the reciprocal
or drug trafficking tariffs. The Learning Resources plaintiffs—two
small businesses—sued in the United States District Court for the Dis
trict of Columbia. That court denied the Government’s motion to
transfer the case to the United States Court of International Trade
(CIT) and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction,
concluding that IEEPA did not grant the President the power to im
pose tariffs. The V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs—five small businesses
and 12 States—sued in the CIT. That court granted summary judg
ment for the plaintiffs. And the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, af
firmed in relevant part, concluding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to
“regulate . . . importation” did not authorize the challenged tariffs,
which “are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.” 149 F. 4th
1312, 1338. The Government filed a petition for certiorari in V.O.S.
Selections, and the Learning Resources plaintiffs filed a petition for
certiorari before judgment. The Court granted the petitions and consolidated the cases.

Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The
judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with
instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25
250 is affirmed.