Supreme Court Rules Against Trump-Era Tariffs

- The 6-3 decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* centered on the President's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), with the majority opinion stating that the act does not grant the executive branch the authority to impose tariffs. - Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, asserted that the power to tax and levy tariffs is a core power of Congress, a principle rooted in the separation of powers. - The ruling does not impact tariffs imposed under separate laws, such as the Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum or the Section 301 tariffs targeting China. - While the steel tariffs were in effect, they were associated with an estimated 75,000 job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector due to higher input costs, according to a Federal Reserve study. - In response to the ruling, former President Trump announced he would use a different law, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose a new 10% global tariff. - This alternative authority allows for tariffs to be imposed for a maximum of 150 days without congressional extension and caps the rate at 15%. - The court's decision may open the door for companies to seek refunds on the millions of dollars already paid under the now-invalidated tariffs. - Dissenting justices, including Brett M. Kavanaugh, argued that text, history, and precedent showed the IEEPA was used properly, and that tariffs are a traditional tool to regulate importation.