The Supreme Court delivered a decisive 6-3 ruling in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* on February 20, 2026, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, even during declared national emergencies.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts applied the major questions doctrine, emphasizing that questions of "vast economic and political significance" require clear Congressional authorization. The Court found that IEEPA's broad language about regulating "transactions" and "transfers" did not constitute the clear statement necessary to delegate such sweeping tariff authority to the executive branch.

"The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations has been a cornerstone of Congressional authority since the founding," Roberts wrote. "We cannot presume that Congress intended to delegate this fundamental power through IEEPA's general provisions, particularly when tariffs can reshape entire sectors of the economy."

The case arose from President Trump's emergency declarations targeting illegal drug trafficking and trade deficits, which he used to justify imposing tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China through Presidential Proclamation No. 10886 and related executive orders. Learning Resources and other importers challenged these measures, arguing IEEPA does not grant such authority.

Justice Thomas authored a concurring opinion emphasizing the constitutional separation of powers, while Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to clarify that the decision does not affect other IEEPA authorities, such as asset freezing and financial sanctions.

In dissent, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, argued the majority applied the major questions doctrine too broadly. "IEEPA's text plainly covers tariffs as economic 'transactions,' and emergency powers have historically included trade measures," Kagan wrote.

The practical implications are significant. The Court granted a 90-day stay to allow the administration to wind down the challenged tariffs, but companies that paid the emergency duties may seek refunds. Legal experts estimate billions in potential refund claims.

The decision also constrains future presidents from using emergency declarations to bypass Congress on trade policy. "This ruling restores the constitutional balance on trade authority," said constitutional law professor Sarah Mitchell. "Presidents can no longer use national security emergencies as a backdoor to impose protectionist policies without Congressional approval."

The ruling comes as Congress debates comprehensive reform of emergency powers statutes, with bipartisan support for clarifying the limits of presidential authority in economic matters.