JOHN YOO: Supreme Court tariff ruling should end complaints that justices favor Trump
The Supreme Court just struck down President Donald Trump’s worldwide tariffs. Contrary to immediate takes on the opinion, Learning Resources v. Trump does not mark a permanent reduction in presidential power. If he chooses, Trump could restore many of his tariffs over the next year under different laws. But Learning Resources should put to bed the left’s attacks on the court and the Constitution, while also highlighting the need for cooperation between the president and Congress in managing foreign affairs.
Writing for a 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed two basic constitutional principles. First, he wrote that the Constitution vests the power to impose tariffs and taxes in Congress alone. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposes and Excises," and "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Second, Congress can delegate that power to the president. Congress has enacted a series of trade laws that have. There was no real disagreement among any of the justices on these two fundamental points.
Where the justices divided is whether Congress had given the president the power to impose the unique, worldwide, immediate tariffs that he imposed last year. On Liberation Day, April 2025, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to set targeted tariffs not only on Canada, Mexico and China, but also a universal tariff of at least 10% on all imports. Roberts, joined by a rare coalition of three conservative justices (himself, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) and three liberal justices (Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson), held that IEEPA did not grant the executive the power to impose tariffs.
The majority unduly narrowed the reach of IEEPA. IEEPA grants the power to the president, in the event of an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to American national security, foreign policy or the economy from abroad, to investigate, block, "regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit" economic transactions with another country.
US TARIFF REVENUE UP 300% UNDER TRUMP AS SUPREME COURT BATTLE LOOMS
Trump declared that the large trade deficit created a national emergency; the court did not touch this aspect of the president’s tariff orders. Instead, the court held that because Congress did not include the specific word "tariff" in IEEPA’s list of powers, it had not granted this power to the executive.
"The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it," Roberts writes. "IEEPA’s grant of authority to ‘regulate … importation’ falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties."
This reading pays no attention to the way that the United States has used IEEPA and its predecessor statute, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. The government, and the lower courts, have long understood the power to "regulate" trade to include the power to impose a complete embargo on hostile nations, such as Cuba, Iran and North Korea.
SUPREME COURT KEEPS NATION WAITING ON TRUMP TARIFF DECISION, RELEASES 3 LOWER-PROFILE OPINIONS
IEEPA’s reference to the powers to "regulate" and "prevent" "importation" of foreign goods is quite sufficient to justify the president in imposing tariffs. Indeed, if sufficiently high, tariffs are simply a tool to "prevent or prohibit" such "importation."
Nevertheless, Learning Resources will not prevent Trump from succeeding in the end. The decision only says that the administration cannot impose tariffs under the IEEPA statute. But Congress has enacted several trade laws that clearly grant the president the power to impose tariffs.
Going by the nicknames of Section 232, Section 301, and Super 301, among others, these laws allow the executive to impose reciprocal tariffs in response to high tariffs on American goods, to sanction unfair trade practice by other countries, or to address a surge of imports in a specific product. And trade law still allows tariffs on specific countries that pose a national security threat to the United States. The Supreme Court did not touch those powers, and, as Trump made clear in his press conference, he intends to re-enact as many of his tariffs as possible under these other laws.
BESSENT WARNS OF 'GIGANTIC LOSS' IF SUPREME COURT STRIPS TRUMP'S EMERGENCY TARIFF POWERS
Beyond the technical reading of trade statutes, and its impact on Trump’s economic policies, Learning Resources bears deeper lessons on our constitutional order.
First, the decision belies the attacks from the left that the Supreme Court – particularly its conservative majority – simply rubber stamps the Trump administration’s policies. Here, two of Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch and Barrett, joined Chief Justice Roberts, himself appointed by President George W. Bush, in striking down the Trump tariffs.
They were joined by the three justices appointed during the Obama and Biden administrations. These justices did not decide the case because they agree or disagree with tariffs or like or dislike Trump. They simply voted because of the way that they read the IEEPA statute’s lack of the word "tariff."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Second, Learning Resources denies the left’s cries of wolf that the United States is falling under an authoritarian regime. Learning Resources demonstrates, again, that the separation of powers continues to work.
Congress alone has the power to impose tariffs and taxes as part of its overall power of the purse. It can delegate that power to the president; and it has. But when existing statutes are silent, Congress retains the constitutional power to set tariff rates. Trump did not claim a right to impose tariffs unilaterally under his executive power; he continuously argued that Congress simply had given him that power in IEEPA. Even if he reimposes tariffs, he will have to use other trade laws enacted by Congress. Using delegated powers according to the terms set out by Congress does not amount to authoritarianism.
Lastly, Learning Resources points the way for future cooperation between the president and Congress. The dissenters –Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh – argued that the court should have read IEEPA broadly in order to allow the president to conduct foreign policy and protect the national security. While the president bears the constitutional responsibility to address foreign threats and advance the nation’s interests abroad, the Constitution vests in Congress the means of international economics.
In order to achieve the nation’s interests in restoring dominance in the Western Hemisphere or fending over the rising threat of China, the president and Congress will have to cooperate to ensure that economic policy plays a harmonious role in a full-spectrum American approach to the world.