SCOTUS Ruling Curbs Presidential Tariffs

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* centered on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, affirmed that the president's power to "regulate... importation" under IEEPA does not grant the authority to levy taxes, a power the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. This ruling immediately invalidates specific tariff programs that relied solely on IEEPA. These include the so-called "fentanyl" tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, and the broad "reciprocal" tariffs that affected imports from more than 90 countries. However, the decision does not affect tariffs imposed under different statutes. The long-standing Section 301 tariffs targeting Chinese goods for unfair trade practices and the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, justified on national security grounds, remain in place. Hours after the ruling, President Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a rarely used provision, to impose a new 10% global tariff, later increased to 15%. This law allows for temporary import restrictions to address "fundamental international payments problems." The move to Section 122 faces its own legal questions, as the statute limits such tariffs to 150 days without congressional extension and is meant to address balance-of-payments deficits, not trade deficits. Critics, including legal scholars and economists, argue the administration's justification for using this law is weak. The financial fallout from the court's decision could be substantial. The federal government may be required to refund tariffs already collected under the now-voided IEEPA measures, with some estimates placing the total between $175 billion and $200 billion.