After reading through 170 pages of the Supreme Court’s opinion, titled: LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., v. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, here is the clear takeaway: the Court says President Trump, using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), does not have the authority to impose tariffs.
The justices state it plainly. “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” That’s Congress’s job. That is the message.
So now what?
Gary Roskin
Roskin Gem News Report
How We Got Here
The U.S. Supreme Court was asked a simple question: does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorize the President to impose tariffs?
Invoking IEEPA, President Trump imposed 25% duties on most Canadian and Mexican imports, 10% duties on most Chinese imports, and reciprocal tariffs of at least 10% “on all imports from all trading partners,” with dozens of nations facing higher rates. Those tariffs were later increased, reduced, and modified.
The Challengers to That Action
Small businesses and several states challenged the president, arguing that IEEPA does not authorize those tariffs. And the lower courts agreed. The Federal Circuit Court then concluded that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate . . . importation” did not authorize tariffs that were “unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.” In other words, they agreed with the lower courts, so the case moved up.
The Supreme Court took the case.
Holding the Constitutional Line
After examining the question and the lower court rulings, the Supreme Court began where the Constitution begins — with Congress.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”
Chief Justice Roberts went on to state that “The power to impose tariffs is ‘very clear[ly] . . . a branch of the taxing power.’”
He also noted something important: “The Government thus concedes that the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime.” Nor, the Court observed, was the administration defending the tariffs as a wartime power. “The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.”
That left one possibility. If the President had the authority to impose these tariffs, it had to come from IEEPA.
The Court concluded that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
Why IEEPA Fell Short
IEEPA allows the President to “investigate, block . . . regulate . . . prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.”
But, as the Court pointed out, “Absent from this lengthy list of specific powers is any mention of tariffs or duties.”
If Congress meant to hand over tariff authority, it would have said so.
The Concurring Justices Were Just As Clear
Justice Gorsuch wrote that “Congress did not clearly surrender to the President the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.”
“For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be dis- appointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the Ameri- can people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.”
Justice Kagan agreed with the outcome and stated that “IEEPA simply does not give the President the power he wants.”
“For all those reasons, straight-up statutory construction resolves this case for me; I need no major-questions thumb on the interpretive scales. IEEPA gives the President significant authority over transactions involving foreign property, including the importation of goods. But in that generous delegation, one power is conspicuously missing. Nothing in IEEPA’s text, nor anything in its context, enables the President to unilaterally impose tariffs. And need- less to say, without statutory authority, the President’s tariffs cannot stand.”
Justice Jackson wrote that, “the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not provide the President with the power to tariff.”
“In the cases now before us, that evidence shows that Congress did not intend for IEEPA to authorize the Executive to impose tariffs. Instead, Congress intended to delegate to the President the power to freeze and control foreign property transactions.”
Justice Barret wrote, “As the principal opinion demonstrates, the most natural reading of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not encompass the power to impose tariffs.”
The Line That Speaks to Importers
One sentence in the opinion will resonate with this industry. The Court noted that “Tariffs operate directly on domestic importers to raise revenue for the Treasury.”
That’s not theory. That’s reality.
Tariffs — duties — are taxes collected from U.S. companies at the port of entry. The Court said so.
A Word of Caution
It’s tempting to celebrate, seeing that the US Supreme Court has voted on the side of limited presidential power.
But if the last several years have shown anything, it’s this: When one legal path closes, another often opens.
Aggressive legal action has been part of Trump’s operating style from the beginning. When courts push back, the response has often been to re-route — not retreat.
So while this ruling is significant — and it is — importers would be wise to stay hopeful, and patient.
What We Now Know
After 170 pages, the Supreme Court has drawn a constitutional boundary. Emergency economic powers are not automatically taxing powers. Tariffs remain a congressional duty. And IEEPA is not a blank check.
The Court closed one door. But history suggests another may open.
Hang in there.
For more details with regards to the Gem Industry response
from AGTA, the American Gem Trade Association, Tap Here.
