Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.

Docket: No. 24-1287 and 25-250 (S.Ct.)

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed an amicus brief on behalf of Cato Institute economists Scott Lincicome, Colin Grabow, and Clark Packard in support the the petitioners challenging the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping supposedly “reciprocal” tariffs without congressional authorization.

The amicus squarely addresses administration arguments that that eliminating IEEPA tariffs would upend U.S. trade, foreign policy, and fiscal stability. Our brief explains why those claims are wrong. For nearly half a century, the United States negotiated trade agreements, built alliances, and sustained economic growth without relying on emergency tariff powers. The extraordinary assertion of unilateral authority here bypasses Congress, distorts trade policy, and threatens the rule of law.

IEEPA tariffs are not essential to foreign affairs. The U.S. has negotiated every major trade agreement without invoking emergency tariff authority. The “reciprocal tariffs” imposed under IEEPA are neither necessary nor actually reciprocal. In almost all cases they are saddling Americans with higher taxes on foreign goods than vice versa, often much higher.

As the brief explains, and contrary to the administration, rolling back these tariffs would have only a modest fiscal impact, which would benefit the U.S. economy by reducing uncertainty and lowering costs to consumers and businesses.

IEEPA tariffs effectively rewrite the U.S. tariff code without congressional input. That kind of unilateral action undermines both economic stability and the constitutional separation of powers. The President’s attempt to claim broad tariff powers under IEEPA risks turning emergency economic powers into a general trade policy tool—something Congress never authorized. If allowed to stand, it would give the executive sweeping power over trade policy with minimal checks, threatening both constitutional limits and economic stability.

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Use of Emergency Powers to Impose Tariffs

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the challengers and held that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Writing for the majority, the Chief Justice declined to find that the words “regulate” and “importation” in the IEEPA delegate to the President the power to impose broad and boundless tariffs. The Court noted that the power to issue tariffs has long been considered derivative to the taxing power, which is squarely in Congress’s realm of authority.