What We Know
- On November 5, 2025, the Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources v. Trump (No. 24‑1287) and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. (No. 25‑250).
- The Trump administration invokes IEEPA to impose global tariffs, arguing that “exploding trade deficits” and the importation of fentanyl and other opioids constitute an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the U.S. economy and national security.
- Opponents argue that tariffs are taxes (a power given to Congress) and that IEEPA does not expressly authorize the imposition of tariffs or duties.
- Lower courts have already held that many of the tariffs exceeded presidential power under IEEPA. For example, a 7-4 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the statute did not authorize the sweeping tariff regime.
- The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to have major implications for trade policy, the executive branch’s emergency power, and the doctrine of when large-scale policy moves require explicit congressional authorization (“major questions” doctrine).
TL;DR: The Court is being asked whether a 1977 emergency powers statute allows a president to impose massive tariffs unilaterally, and whether doing so upends the separation of powers by shifting core trade authority from Congress to the presidency.
Stakes & Legal Arguments
There are quite a few items we could dig into – including the distinction between licenses, licensing fees, and tariffs, which were all mentioned and argued about in these oral arguments. If you have questions on that, you are welcome to comment them below this article or on any of our social media, and we will assist with those answers.
To not dig too much into the weeds, though, and to get to the basis of the question at hand, here is a breakdown of what really matters in this case.
When you listen to or dig into the transcript of the oral arguments in this consolidated case, the issues focus on three legal matters:
- Statutory interpretation of IEEPA
At the hearing, the Solicitor General (SG) for the Department of Justice (DOJ), D. John Sauer, argued that IEEPA’s grant of power to “regulate … importation” plainly covers tariffs. He maintained that the word “regulate” is broad enough to include tariffs or “tariff equivalents.”
But several justices were skeptical. For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts asked why the statute does not use the word “tariff” if that was Congress’s intent. Likewise, Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed: “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”
- Constitutional limits on executive power
The argument touched on the non-delegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine. The latter insists that when a question implicates a large economic or political policy shift, clear congressional authority is required. Justice Sotomayor raised whether “an emergency” can bypass the major questions doctrine. SG Sauer countered that in the foreign‑affairs/emergency context, the major questions doctrine is “a particularly poor fit.”
- The delineation between Congress and the President in trade policy
Historically, Congress has held the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and impose tariffs (the power of the purse). The question is: Did Congress delegate that power to the President via IEEPA? Opponents say no; there is no clear textual grant of tariff-imposing authority in presidential powers or in Article II (of the Constitution). The administration says yes, pointing to past practice and the broad statutory language.
The balance of power is at issue. If the Court sides with the administration, it expands presidential autonomy in trade matters. If not, it reaffirms congressional primacy in trade and restricts unilateral executive tariff regimes.
The Facts: Did the Emergency Justify the Tariffs?
At the heart of the legal dispute lies a critical question: Does the situation cited by the administration really count as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)? The short answer from many legal scholars: no.
A second TL;DR: the administration’s claim that fentanyl trafficking and trade deficits constitute an “emergency” under IEEPA is deeply contested, especially given the historical use of the statute, the continuity of the trade deficit, and the mismatch between the emergency cited and the policy tool used (tariffs). For the communities of Black and brown people, small business owners, and under-resourced organizations, this matters because the outcome will help determine whether executive power continues to expand unchecked or whether meaningful oversight and legislative authority remain central to trade-related policymaking.
The Administration’s Position
- The government framed the crisis as two-fold: first, the influx of illicit opioids (primarily fentanyl) across borders, especially from China, Canada, and Mexico; and second, persistent and growing U.S. trade deficits that the administration argues undermine national security and economic well-being.
- Under Executive Orders issued in early 2025, the administration declared national emergencies and imposed tariffs under IEEPA.
- The government argues that the statute’s language (namely, the power to “regulate … importation” of goods during an emergency) gives the President latitude to impose tariffs as a tool of economic and national‑security response.
Challenger’s View
- Opponents argue that the IEEPA threshold requires a true “unusual and extraordinary threat,” one that is unexpected and urgent, not a longstanding trade imbalance or chronic drug smuggling pattern. The lower courts found that a decades-old trade deficit and longstanding fentanyl trafficking do not meet that bar.
- In one key ruling, the United States Court of International Trade stated, “The Trafficking Orders do not ‘deal with’ their stated objectives. Rather, as the Government acknowledges, the Orders aim to create leverage to ‘deal with’ those objectives.”
- Many legal scholars point out that IEEPA has historically been used for sanctions, asset freezes, and embargoes, but not sweeping general‑tariff regimes hitting a large portion of the economy. The statute doesn’t mention “tariffs” or “duties,” only “regulate importation.”
Why Many Consider the “Emergency” Claim Weak
- The fentanyl crisis is undeniably severe in humanitarian terms, but the link between that crisis and the tariff mechanism imposed is challenged. The tariffs do not directly stop fentanyl shipments; rather, they apply broadly to imports from entire countries without showing a causal nexus to the drug flow.
- As for the trade deficits, the U.S. has run deficits for decades. Using that chronic condition as the foundation for a national emergency strains the “unusual and extraordinary” language of IEEPA. The critics say this would convert every major policy disagreement into an “emergency” and collapse the statute’s limits.
- The tariffs are massive in economic scope (touching vast segments of imports) and long in duration, which are characteristics that courts say lean against a temporary, emergency-based power.
Other Core Arguments in the Case
- Tariff vs. Regulation: Plaintiffs emphasize that tariffs are effectively taxes or duties, which by constitutional design are powers reserved to Congress. The administration contends that IEEPA, in its foundational interpretation, includes the power for the President to enact regulatory tariffs.
- Major Questions Doctrine: Because the economic stakes are so large and policy so transformative, the Court may apply the doctrine requiring clear congressional authorization for decisions of this magnitude. Several justices during oral argument seemed skeptical of the administration’s broad reading of IEEPA.
- Non-delegation/Separation of Powers: If IEEPA were interpreted to allow wide-ranging tariff authority, critics argue it would hand the executive branch legislative power without meaningful constraints, raising constitutional concerns.
Why This Matters
For disenfranchised and marginalized communities, tariff regimes may seem obscure to many, but their economic ripple effects can be deeply felt. Higher consumer prices, supply chain disruptions, and employment shifts in import-reliant sectors hit Black and brown workers and small businesses hardest. This case might seem like high-level legal theory, but when presidents use emergency powers to impose tariffs without Congress, those decisions can spark higher costs on everyday goods, disrupt small business supply chains, and fuel job losses in industries that rely on imported materials.
At its core, this case asks who gets to make the big economic decisions that shape our lives. If the Supreme Court greenlights this broad use of presidential power, future leaders could use emergency laws to enact sweeping policies without checks, input, or transparency. And history tells us: when power goes unchecked, marginalized communities are rarely the beneficiaries.
This is also a call to action. Whether the Court restricts or expands executive authority, it reinforces how urgent it is to build policy literacy, demand transparency, and shift the influence over how federal economic tools are used. Trade policy is not just a global chess game with little impact, but it is a policy that impacts real people experiencing real issues. And it is beyond time we put people over profits at every level of government and socioeconomic decisions.