How and why the conservative justices differed on tariffs
SCOTUSblog
by Erwin ChemerinskyFebruary 23, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* highlights significant divisions among conservative justices regarding the president’s authority to impose tariffs. While there was unanimity that the Constitution does not grant the president inherent power to levy tariffs during peacetime, the justices diverged sharply on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows such actions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. They argued that the statute’s language lacks explicit reference to tariffs or taxation, and historical precedent supports this interpretation. However, Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch (in a separate dissent), and Brett Kavanaugh contended that tariffs are a traditional tool of import regulation and that IEEPA provides sufficient authority for such measures.
The case also revealed deep divisions over the major questions doctrine, which limits executive action on significant policy matters without clear congressional authorization. Roberts and others emphasized the importance of this principle in preventing unilateral presidential actions. Kavanaugh, however, criticized what he called a “gilded major questions doctrine,” arguing it risks overreducing executive power.
This disagreement is significant because it underscores tensions within the conservative bloc and could shape future decisions on executive authority. The outcome also sets a precedent for interpreting IEEPA and similar statutes, impacting how future presidents may wield trade policy powers. For legal scholars and practitioners, this decision highlights the ongoing struggle to balance executive authority with constitutional and statutory constraints.
Verticals
legalpolitics
Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 2/23/2026