The Supreme Court struck down the Administration’s use of the International Economic Emergency Protection Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs on nearly every country on Earth (Learning Resources v. Trump, 24-1287). It was arguably the least surprising outcome because Congress did not authorize the use of tariffs in IEEPA. The Administration, moreover, has imposed tariffs in an arbitrary and chaotic manner. The Court noted early in the decision that “[s]ince imposing each set of tariffs, the President has issued several increases, reductions, and other modifications” with the rest of the page listing them (Id., at 3).
The Constitution in Article I, Section 8 specifies that “Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” (U.S. Constitution). Those are literally the first words in the section that enumerates the powers of Congress, and the Court opinion opened its decision with those words (Learning Resources, at 5). IEEPA, by contrast, is part of Title 50 of the United States Code for “War and National Defense” and is in Chapter 35, “International Economic Powers” (50 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.). The authorities that Congress did provide to the President included “such regulations as he may prescribe” to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” (50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added).
The President claimed that those two words, “regulate” and “importation,” permitted him to assert “the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time” but the Court concluded that “[t]hose words cannot bear such weight” (Learning Resources, at 5). Tariffs, by comparison, are taxes on domestic consumers that are levied on imported goods and services (Learning Resources, at 6). The power to tax “involves the core power of the purse” and that “[w]hat common sense suggests, congressional practice confirms” because Congress has delegated tariff powers but only “in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits” and generally in provisions under Title 19, “Customs Duties” (Learning Resources, at 8-9). The Court added that “[a]gainst this backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs” (Id., at 9). Finally, the Court concluded that the “President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope” under IEEPA which “contains no reference to tariffs or duties” and therefore “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs” (Id., at 20).
Why the Administration elected to try to squeeze unlimited power to impose import taxes under the provisions of IEEPA remains a mystery, especially given the history and purpose of that statute (see e.g., farmdoc daily, November 20, 2025). Between the Constitution and the law, the Supreme Court did not have much choice. This entirely predictable outcome provides little certainty, however, and more chaos can be expected in the wake of the decision (Swanson, February 23, 2026; Romm and Swanson, February 21, 2026; Bradsher et al., February 20, 2026).
Source : illinois.edu