Can the President Impose Tariffs? Executive Authority and the Supreme Court

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a major trade dispute over presidential tariff authority. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026), the Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the lead opinion, and the key holding drew support across the Court’s typical ideological lines.

The decision struck down two sweeping sets of tariffs and reaffirmed the principle that Congress has the power to tax. If your business was impacted and you have questions about the constitutional authority to impose tariffs affecting your business or another constitutional law question, contact an attorney who specializes in constitutional law.

Who Holds the Power To Tax?

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods, fall squarely within that authority.

The Framers of the Constitution, who created the separation of powers, wanted to ensure that a single executive did not control taxation. Thus, congressional authorization is required to confer presidential tariff authority.

Presidential powers do not typically include the inherent power to impose tariffs during peacetime. When a president levies a tariff, it is the result of congressional authorization.

Over the decades, Congress has passed several statutes that allow the president to impose tariffs:

• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Allows tariffs to protect national security after a formal investigation by the Secretary of Commerce.
• Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Permits tariffs in response to unfair foreign trade practices following an investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative.
• Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Allows a temporary import surcharge to address large balance-of-payments deficits.
• Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Permits the President to respond to countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce.

Each statute uses specific language that comes with restraints. When Congress delegates its tariff power, it provides limits.

What Is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and How Was It Used?

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act was enacted in 1977. It grants the president the power to address extraordinary foreign threats after declaring a national emergency.

Historically, presidents have used the IEEPA to freeze foreign assets or to effectuate foreign policy objectives by imposing sanctions on hostile regimes.

Before President Trump, no other administration had used the IEEPA to impose tariffs. In 2025, the Trump administration used its emergency powers to declare two national emergencies and subsequently invoked IEEPA:

1. Drug trafficking tariffs. The president imposed a 25% duty on most imports from Canada and Mexico. Duties on Chinese goods increased to as much as 145%.
2. Reciprocal tariffs. The president imposed a baseline duty of at least 10% on every trading partner, with some countries facing even higher rates.

These tariffs were broadly applied, triggered significant disruptions in trade relationships, pricing, and supply chains, and intensified trade tensions.

The Businesses That Brought the Challenge

The cases that reached the Supreme Court involved small businesses affected by duties on imported goods. The duties, which could be 25%, 84%, or even 145%, could erase their margins and make it impossible to forecast costs due to the rate changes that could occur with little warning. When importers could no longer swallow the increased costs, everyday consumers saw prices increase.

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump involved a pair of businesses. They sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, several small businesses and 12 states sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), which handles trade disputes.

The Arguments and the Supreme Court’s Ruling

The legal dispute rested on the scope of “regulate” and “importation” as used in the IEEPA. The IEEPA provides the authority to “regulate” or “prohibit” imports of certain property.

• The government’s position. The government argued that the power to regulate importation includes the power to impose tariffs. The government contended that because the statute allows the president to block or restrict imports, tariffs are simply another tool for controlling importation.
• The businesses’ position. Regulating and taxing are distinct powers under both the Constitution and longstanding practice. Other statutes that provide congressional approval for tariff authority use the terms “tariff” or “duty.” The IEEPA statute does not include the words “tariff” or “duty,” and no other presidential administration has adopted a statutory interpretation that would include tariffs within the executive powers provided by the IEEPA.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

The Court’s majority held that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The reasoning rested on the text, the constitutional structure, and Congress’s pattern of using explicit tariff language.

The Court affirmed a lower court decision that invalidated two sets of IEEPA tariffs — one on imports from Canada, Mexico, and the People’s Republic of China; another on most other U.S. imports based on a declared emergency concerning the U.S. trade deficit.

Based on its reasoning that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision in V.O.S. Selections. The Court vacated the district court’s decision in Learning Resources on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Court of International Trade, rather than the district court, had original jurisdiction over lawsuits challenging the IEEPA tariffs.

Chief Justice Roberts gave the Court’s opinion. On the core holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, Roberts was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson. Seven Justices wrote opinions in this case.

Another part of the decision — joined only by three justices, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett — analyzed the major questions doctrine and its application to the facts of this case. The major questions doctrine provides that when the executive branch claims power of vast “economic and political significance,” it must point to clear Congressional authorization.

What the Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling Means

The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. held that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The practical consequences of the decision vary.

For the businesses that brought the case, the decision offers the possibility of refunds. For other businesses impacted by tariffs, it’s important to review your import history to determine how the ruling affects your operations and refund eligibility.

Tariff Ruling’s Impact on Businesses and Importers

The ruling turns tariffs already paid into potential overpayments. The ruling means that certain IEEPA-based duties may now be treated as improper. However, refunds to those businesses that paid tariffs are not automatic. Businesses must navigate complex administrative processes with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and follow related administrative procedures.

Refunds could yield significant cash inflows for eligible businesses. The process is highly technical, requiring companies to actively submit claims, validate data, and meet strict documentation requirements.

Tariff Ruling’s Impact on Consumers

When businesses had to pay duties, many passed the tariff costs down the supply chain. Removing duties may bring price relief over time on goods sourced from abroad. This impacts everything from everyday household items to specialized industrial products.

Tariff Ruling’s Impact on Executive Power

Learning Resources, Inc. reaffirms that major tariff policy must originate in Congress or through the specific statutes that already authorize tariffs. Congress has the power of the purse. The executive branch cannot bypass guardrails by declaring a national emergency to impose taxes to address trade deficits or for any other reason.

Following the decision, the Trump administration announced that it would pursue tariffs through channels such as Section 232, Section 301, and Section 122. Those statutes remain available.

The Court concluded that the President had attempted to use presidential power under the IEEPA, which was not the proper legal authority to impose tariffs. The Court did not find that the tariffs themselves were unconstitutional, but that they were not properly imposed in Learning Resources, Inc.

Speak with a Constitutional Lawyer

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump is a landmark decision reaffirming the fundamental constitutional law principle that the power to tax rests with Congress and the presidential authority to act must be clear before the president can impose a tariff. However, the tariff landscape remains fluid.

If your business was affected by these tariffs and you have questions about refund rights or the scope of presidential tariff authority, contact an experienced attorney who specializes in constitutional law.