A breakdown of the court’s tariff decision

SCOTUSblog

by Adam Feldman

February 20, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs without clear congressional authorization. In a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that IEEPA's broad language to "regulate importation" does not include the power to levy taxes or tariffs. The justices emphasized that tariffs fall under Congress's taxing authority and require explicit legislative approval. This landmark ruling limits the president’s ability to unilaterally impose economic sanctions and underscores the constitutional separation of powers. The court’s decision, announced on Feb. 20, 2026, split along two coalitions. Six justices—including Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson—joined in the majority opinion, which focused on the textual limits of IEEPA. They noted that neither the statute nor any other law uses "regulate" to authorize taxation. The court also cited historical precedents, such as *Gibbons v. Ogden*, to reinforce its conclusion that tariffs are a taxing power reserved for Congress. However, three justices—Gorsuch, Barrett, and Thomas—filed separate concurrences or dissents, with Gorsuch leading a narrower plurality that emphasized the "major questions doctrine." This principle requires clear congressional authorization for significant presidential actions, such as imposing tariffs. The ruling resolved two related cases: *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* and *Trump v. V.O.S. Selections*. While the merits decision was unanimous on the lack of IEEPA authority, the court remanded one case for dismissal due to jurisdictional issues. The dissenters, led by Justice Thomas, argued that the majority erred in applying the major questions doctrine too strictly. They warned that this approach could unnecessarily restrict presidential powers during national emergencies. Meanwhile, Justices Kavanaugh and Alito dissented separately, emphasizing their views on executive authority. This decision has significant implications for U.S. trade policy and constitutional law. It reinforces Congress’s role in shaping economic sanctions and limits the president’s ability to act unilaterally. Legal experts say the ruling could set

Verticals

legalpolitics

Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 2/20/2026