Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2025): The Authority to Tariff

By Ben Pope — December 15, 2025

Introduction

On February 1, 2025, President Trump announced a 10% tariff on China and a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico, citing a national emergency based on illegal border crossings and drug trafficking into the United States. On April 2, he declared “Liberation Day,” announcing a 10% tariff minimum on all countries and setting higher rates for trading partners with significant trade deficits. With many other partners facing tariffs of up to 34%, China’s rate rose to 54%. Following further renegotiations and “reciprocal tariff” announcements, China faced a 145% tariff on goods shipped to the United States by April 11. Due to a large percentage of the tariff burden falling on consumers, these measures caused serious challenges for many U.S. businesses that rely on Chinese goods.

These tariffs quickly came under legal scrutiny. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” and to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Because tariffs function as a form of taxation, Congress appears to possess sole constitutional authority to impose them.

On April 22, 2025, Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind, Inc.—two toy manufacturing companies—filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., challenging the tariffs. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (U.S. argued Nov. 2025), the plaintiffs relied on Chinese goods and alleged the tariffs would raise their costs from $2.3 million to over $100 million, threatening their family-owned business with collapse. They argued that President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701, to impose tariffs was unconstitutional.

Background

Historically, presidents have imposed tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. These statutes require specific federal agencies to conduct investigations and make certain findings before the president may impose tariffs. This authority was upheld in the landmark case J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), which established that Congress may delegate authority to the Executive Branch so long as it provides an “intelligible principle” to guide executive action.

In other words, the president does not legislate; he merely executes the law within congressionally defined limits. Unlike these statutes, the IEEPA does not require external investigation, allowing the president to “regulate” or “prohibit” imports—although never explicitly authorizing tariffs—once a national emergency has been declared. Notably, the IEEPA has never before been used to impose tariffs.

Recent Developments

On November 5, 2025, oral arguments were heard in the Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. With three Trump appointees currently on the Court, it has recently shown greater deference to executive authority. This case, however, appears to stand on uncertain ground, with Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch expressing varying degrees of unease with the president’s position. Chief Justice Roberts questioned the unprecedented use of the IEEPA in this context. Justice Gorsuch similarly expressed concern about delegating the authority of taxation to the Executive Branch, noting its historical significance during the American Revolution.

In May 2025, lower court rulings from both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of International Trade found this use of the IEEPA to be unconstitutional. The Court of International Trade’s ruling was upheld en banc by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in August 2025. All lower court rulings have been stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

Some legal scholars argue that if these tariffs are upheld, the decision could further blur the constitutional boundaries between the Legislative and Executive Branches by granting excessive power to the presidency and permitting circumvention of congressional procedures and limits. Other scholars contend that the fast pace of global affairs cannot wait for bureaucratic delay, and that the president must retain the ability to act swiftly and effectively during national emergencies under the authority granted by the IEEPA.

Bibliography

  • International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1708.
  • J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928).
  • Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (U.S. argued Nov. 2025).
  • Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-01248, slip op. (D.D.C. May 2025).
  • Trade Act of 1974 § 201, 19 U.S.C. § 2251.
  • Trade Act of 1974 § 301, 19 U.S.C. § 2411.
  • Trade Expansion Act of 1962 § 232, 19 U.S.C. § 1862.
  • U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.
  • V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-00078, slip op. (Ct. Int’l Trade May 28, 2025).
  • V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-1367 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2025) (en banc).