According to Forbes, the Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case, Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, that challenges presidential authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Two educational toy companies successfully argued in district court that tariffs constitute a “uniquely dangerous” tax power requiring specific congressional delegation, which they claim is absent in IEEPA’s broad language. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, consolidating the case with V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. United States, and scheduled oral arguments for November 5, 2025. The petitioners contend that while Congress can delegate tariff authority, it must do so explicitly using specific language like “tariff” rather than relying on IEEPA’s general regulatory powers. This case represents the sole taxing power dispute currently before the Court and could have significant implications for executive authority.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Constitutional Stakes Beyond Tariffs
This case represents far more than a dispute about toy import duties—it’s a direct challenge to the modern administrative state’s foundation. The petitioners’ “tax exceptionalism” argument, if adopted by the Court, could unravel decades of established practice where Congress delegates complex economic decisions to executive agencies. The implications extend well beyond tariffs to potentially challenge IRS regulations, environmental taxes, healthcare mandates, and countless other areas where Congress provides general frameworks for executive implementation. What makes this particularly dangerous for the administrative state is that the nondelegation doctrine, largely dormant since the New Deal era, has shown recent signs of revival in conservative jurisprudence.
Immediate Business and Trade Consequences
For international businesses and supply chain managers, this case creates unprecedented uncertainty. Companies that have structured their operations around predictable tariff frameworks now face potential disruption regardless of the outcome. If the Court sides with the petitioners, hundreds of existing tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority could be invalidated, creating chaos for importers who paid duties and exporters who structured their pricing around them. Conversely, if the government prevails, it reinforces expansive presidential power to unilaterally reshape trade relationships through emergency declarations. The historical precedent of congressional delegation since the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act has provided relative stability that this case threatens to undermine.
Separation of Powers in Crisis
The deeper constitutional crisis here involves Congress’s systematic abandonment of its Article I responsibilities. For decades, legislators from both parties have preferred delegating difficult trade and tax decisions to the executive branch to avoid political accountability for unpopular choices. This case exposes how that convenience has created a constitutional imbalance where presidents increasingly govern through emergency powers rather than legislation. The emergency powers framework under IEEPA was never intended to become a permanent feature of trade policy, yet presidents now routinely use it for economic measures that Congress lacks the political will to address directly. This represents a fundamental distortion of the constitutional design that reserves taxing power exclusively for the legislative branch.
Global Trade and Diplomatic Fallout
Internationally, this case could severely constrain U.S. negotiating position in trade disputes. If the Court restricts presidential tariff authority, other nations may perceive the U.S. as unable to respond quickly to unfair trade practices or economic coercion. The flexibility that presidents have enjoyed since Franklin Roosevelt’s administration to adjust trade relationships through executive action has been a crucial tool in international economic statecraft. Removing that tool without congressional willingness to fill the gap could leave the U.S. strategically handicapped in dealing with competitors like China, which operates with far more centralized trade authority. The historical development of tariff delegation shows how each expansion of executive authority responded to genuine economic and strategic necessities that Congress couldn’t address through legislation alone.
The Precarious State of Judicial Precedent
What makes this case particularly fascinating is how it tests the durability of long-standing precedent. Since J.W. Hampton & Co. v. United States in 1928 established the “intelligible principle” standard for delegation, courts have consistently rejected nondelegation challenges to tariff authority. Multiple circuit courts, including the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits, have upheld IEEPA delegations against similar challenges. However, the Supreme Court’s composition and recent skepticism about administrative power suggest this historical consensus may be vulnerable. The petitioners’ strategy of framing tariffs as a unique constitutional power rather than general regulatory authority represents a sophisticated attempt to carve out an exception to established delegation jurisprudence that could appeal to justices concerned about executive overreach.
The Economic Theory Behind the Legal Argument
At its core, this case involves competing economic philosophies about the nature of taxation. The petitioners argue that tariffs’ revenue-raising function makes them fundamentally different from other regulatory measures—they “enrich the taxer at the expense of the taxed.” This view reflects classical economic theory that sees all taxes as inherently coercive transfers. The government’s position, by contrast, treats tariffs as regulatory tools for managing international trade relationships, consistent with modern economic understanding that tariffs primarily function as protectionist measures rather than significant revenue sources. This theoretical divide explains why the parties can’t agree on whether prohibiting imports entirely constitutes a greater exercise of power than imposing tariffs—they’re operating from fundamentally different conceptions of what tariffs actually do in a modern economy.
Potential Outcomes and Their Consequences
The Court faces several paths forward, each with distinct consequences. A narrow ruling against these specific tariffs while upholding IEEPA’s general constitutionality would create minimal disruption. A broader ruling requiring explicit congressional authorization for all tariff impositions would force Congress to either reclaim its constitutional responsibilities or explicitly delegate this authority—likely through legislation that could itself face constitutional challenge. The most dramatic outcome would be embracing the petitioners’ tax exceptionalism theory, which could invalidate not just tariff delegations but potentially any congressional delegation of taxing authority to executive agencies. Given the established precedent and practical necessities of modern governance, the Court will likely seek a middle path that addresses the specific IEEPA question without upending the entire framework of administrative taxation.
