Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump, President of the United States, et al.

Washington, D.C. constitutional law lawyers represented the Plaintiffs challenging the imposition of tariffs charged on wine imported from other counties.

The question presented is whether the International Emergency Eco-
nomic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.
See 91 Stat. 1626. Shortly after taking office, President Trump sought
to address two foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada,
Mexico, and China, Presidential Proclamation No. 10886, 90 Fed. Reg.
8327; Exec. Order No. 14193, 90 Fed. Reg. 9113; Exec. Order No.
14194, 90 Fed. Reg. 9117; Exec. Order No. 14195, 90 Fed. Reg. 9121,
and “large and persistent” trade deficits, Exec. Order No. 14257, 90
Fed. Reg. 15041. The President determined that the drug influx had
“created a public health crisis,” 90 Fed. Reg. 9113, and that the trade
deficits had “led to the hollowing out” of the American manufacturing
base and “undermined critical supply chains,” id., at 15041. The Pres-
ident declared a national emergency as to both threats, deeming them
“unusual and extraordinary,” and invoked his authority under IEEPA
to respond.


On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to unilaterally impose tariffs. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision, finding the tariffs unlawful and upholding a major victory for importer V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and others challenging the executive action.
Key Aspects of the Case:

The Ruling: The Supreme Court determined that tariffs are a congressional power to tax, not a presidential power to "regulate" under IEEPA.
Background: V.O.S. Selections, a wine importer, and other businesses challenged tariffs imposed under IEEPA, arguing they exceeded presidential authority.
Lower Court Decisions: Both the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously ruled that IEEPA did not authorize these tariffs, calling them "unbounded in scope, amount, and duration".

Impact: This decision effectively invalidates the specific tariffs in question, which were enacted in 2025.

The Supreme Court vacated a related D.C. District Court judgment and instructed it to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the Federal Circuit's ruling that such challenges belong in the Court of International Trade.