Supreme Court reaffirms that tariff power belongs to Congress, not the president

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the Supreme Court delivered an important separation of powers ruling with consequences well beyond trade policy. The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not allow the President to impose tariffs absent clear congressional authorization.

The holding is straightforward. Tariffs are duties. Duties are taxes. Article I of the Constitution vests the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” in Congress, not the Executive.

What the case was about

The administration invoked IEEPA, a 1977 statute that allows the President to regulate certain economic transactions after declaring a national emergency involving a foreign threat. Relying on that authority, the Executive imposed broad tariffs affecting imports from multiple countries. The question before the Court was whether IEEPA’s general language allowing the President to “regulate” transactions in foreign commerce includes the power to impose tariffs. The Court answered no. If Congress intends to delegate, the power to levy duties (a core Article I function) it must do so clearly and specifically. EEPA does not contain such authorization.

Separation of powers is not optional

The Court’s reasoning reinforces a structural principle that predates modern administrative law. The Framers placed the taxing power in Congress because it is the branch most directly accountable to the people. The power to impose financial burdens on the public is not incidental. It is fundamental. Allowing the Executive to infer sweeping tariff authority from general statutory language would transfer a central legislative function to the President. Rightly, the Court refused to endorse that shift. This case is not about whether tariffs are good or bad policy. It is about who decides, and the Constitution answers that question clearly.

The major questions doctrine at work

The decision is also significant for its application of the major questions doctrine. In recent years, the Court has made clear that when an administration claims authority of vast economic and political consequence, courts require unmistakable statutory text. Therefore, it stands to reason that our Constitution does not hide transformative powers in modest phrases. Congress must speak clearly if it intends to delegate extraordinary authority. Herein, the asserted power was sweeping, i.e., the ability to impose broad, economy-wide tariffs under an emergency statute that does not mention tariffs. The Court concluded that such authority cannot be inferred. Equally important, the Court rejected the argument that emergency or foreign affairs contexts relax these interpretive constraints. Structural constitutional limits do not evaporate when urgency is invoked. If anything, moments of asserted emergency heighten the need for clear lines of authority.

Why this matters going forward

The implications extend beyond trade. First, the decision reinforces that emergency statutes are not carte blanche for the executive branch to wield as it sees fit. Congress may grant substantial authority to the Executive, but when that authority implicates core legislative powers, especially taxation, clarity is paramount.

Second, the ruling strengthens predictability for regulated entities. Businesses and consumers must not be subject to sweeping economic burdens based on expansive interpretations of ambiguous statutory text.

Third, the case underscores that separation of powers is a liberty-protecting principle, not a technicality. When power accumulates in one branch, accountability diminishes. The Constitution’s structure is designed to prevent that accumulation.

Constitutional structure endures

At the Competitive Enterprise Institute, we focus not only on policy outcomes but on constitutional process. This decision affirms that even in areas touching national security or foreign commerce, the allocation of authority matters.

If Congress wishes to authorize broad tariff authority under emergency conditions, it must do so explicitly. Until then, the power to impose duties remains where the Constitution places it:  the legislative branch. That is not merely a formal rule. It is a safeguard for democratic accountability and economic liberty.