Understanding Major Tariffs at Econlib

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump will lead to immediate political repercussions, significant economic impacts, and nuanced long-term consequences for the legal landscape. While the doctrinal ramifications may appear limited due to the division among the justices, who largely focused on a single issue concerning the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), there is still much to unpack. Six justices agreed that IEEPA does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs. However, even on this point, the justices were not in complete agreement: one faction applied the major questions doctrine, which suggests that Congress must provide clearer authorization for such extraordinary powers, while the other maintained that the president’s lack of authority was evident without invoking such a clear-statement requirement.

Regardless, the case is crucial for maintaining the separation of powers. The majority of justices shared the fundamental view that tariffs are effectively taxes and thus fall under Congress’s control of fiscal policy. A declaration of emergency does not transfer authority to the president. In this regard, Learning Resources reaffirms the supremacy of Congress.