← All Cases

L.R. v. Trump

No. 24-1287 SCOTUS · Decided Decided SCOTUS
Cert Granted: Sep 9, 2025 Argued: Nov 5, 2025 Decided: Feb 20, 2026
📄 Read the Opinion

Case Overview

The Supreme Court held, 6-3 in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs on imported goods as a form of trade regulation. The Court vacated the Federal Circuit's ruling upholding the tariff orders and remanded for proceedings consistent with the statutory holding. NO TMR_ID ASSIGNED. FLAG FOR IRIS.

Decision

Opinion John G. Roberts, Jr.

Opinion of the Court

John G. Roberts, Jr.

The Facts

After taking office, President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, citing threats from drug trafficking and migration. IEEPA authorizes the President to declare a national emergency and regulate transactions with foreign nationals or property subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Trump issued proclamations and executive orders imposing tariffs ranging from 25 percent on Mexican and Canadian goods to 10 percent on Chinese goods, citing IEEPA as legal authority.

The Issue

Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the President to impose tariffs as a response to national security emergencies related to drug trafficking and illegal immigration.

The government argued that IEEPA's broad emergency powers allow the President to regulate foreign commerce to address threats, including drugs and migration. Challengers argued that tariff authority resides solely with Congress under the Constitution's taxation and commerce powers, and IEEPA's delegation does not extend to imposing tariffs.

The Rules

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 Congressional Taxing Power

Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. This power is vested solely in Congress, not delegated to the President.

50 U.S.C. §1701 et seq. (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) IEEPA Scope

IEEPA authorizes the President to regulate foreign transactions during national emergencies, but the statute's scope is limited to existing statutory authority. IEEPA does not create new taxing power.

Separation of Powers Doctrine Non-Delegation and Enumerated Powers

Powers vested in one branch—such as Congress's taxing power—cannot be delegated to another branch, even during emergencies. A statute cannot grant authority the Constitution reserves to Congress.

The Application

Constitutional Enumeration and Emergency

Tariffs are taxes. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to lay tariffs. The Framers understood this power as central to Congressional authority and economic sovereignty. They were suspicious of executive power over commerce and deliberately placed the taxing power in the legislature. IEEPA is a broad statute, but it cannot do what the Constitution forbids. It cannot grant tariff power to the President. Even in emergencies, separation of powers matters. The President may respond to threats through military action, diplomacy, and other executive powers. But changing tax rates—that is Congress's job.

IEEPA's Proper Scope

The government's argument would make IEEPA limitless. Any threat—drugs, migration, climate change, pandemic—could be called a national emergency justifying tariffs. But IEEPA's text does not say 'the President may impose any penalty' during emergencies. It regulates 'foreign transactions' through powers Congress has already granted elsewhere in law. Those powers do not include tariff authority. IEEPA is a tool for wielding existing Congressional delegations; it is not a new delegation of taxing power.

The Conclusion

**The Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.** Article I reserves the taxing power to Congress. The President's proclamations and executive orders imposing tariffs violated the separation of powers. The judgment in the direct appeal (No. 24-1287) was vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment in the appellate case (No. 25-250) upholding the injunction was affirmed.

The decision reaffirms that even in emergency circumstances, the Constitution's structural divisions of power hold. Congress is the branch that taxes and regulates commerce. The President cannot seize that power by declaring an emergency.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledJun 17, 2025
Judge
CL Statusactive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert GrantedSep 9, 2025
Statusactive
Filed (CL)Jun 17, 2025
View on CourtListener →

Decision

Opinion John G. Roberts, Jr.
SCOTUS TMR-202bfe1d Jul 5, 2026
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support