The Supreme Court struck down IEEPA-based tariffs on Feb. 20, invoking the major questions doctrine and forcing the Trump administration to seek new trade authority.
The Supreme Court held on Feb. 20 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, invalidating the sweeping suite of tariff orders the Trump administration had imposed on nearly all U.S. trading partners under that statute [1]. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, concluding that a delegation of Congress's core constitutional power over tariffs, a power of such vast economic and political significance, required a clear and explicit grant of authority from the legislature, which IEEPA does not supply [1]. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the opinion [1].
The consolidated cases, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, docket No. 24-1287, were decided by the Supreme Court of the United States following lower-court challenges to the executive branch's use of IEEPA as the legal vehicle for broad, country-wide tariff schedules [1]. Importers and trade groups had argued that the statute, enacted in 1977 primarily to authorize asset freezes and financial sanctions in foreign-policy emergencies, was never designed to confer tariff-setting authority on the executive [1]. The administration contended that IEEPA's text granting the president power to "regulate" international commercial transactions was broad enough to encompass tariff imposition [1].
The ruling is the most significant judicial constraint on presidential economic power in decades [2]. By applying the major questions doctrine, the Court signaled that future attempts to derive expansive trade authority from general emergency statutes will face a high threshold of textual clarity [1] [2]. Within hours of the decision, the administration issued Proclamation 11012, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that had gone unused since its enactment, to impose a 10% across-the-board tariff [1] [2]. That proclamation was itself struck down by the Court of International Trade in May, opening a second wave of trade litigation [2].
The ruling forces the administration to pursue Section 301 investigations under the Trade Act of 1974 or seek new congressional authorization for any durable tariff program [2]. Section 301 actions carry procedural requirements, including agency investigation and public comment periods, that constrain the pace and scope of tariff deployment [2]. Legal practitioners and trade counsel expect ongoing litigation over the scope of remaining statutory authorities, and the administration has signaled it will pursue legislative remedies to restore broader executive flexibility in future trade disputes [2].