Learning Resources v. Trump
The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), an economic sanctions law, does not authorize the president to unilaterally set tariffs.
607 U.S. 229 · No. 24-1287 · 2025 term · Roberts Court
Decided Feb 20, 2026 · argued Nov 5, 2025
Miscellaneous · Executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states
Landmark · Foreign
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Vacated. Learning Resources won.
What this ruling means
Vacated: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, so it no longer has any effect.
Learning Resources was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. 229 (2026), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), an economic sanctions law, does not authorize the president to unilaterally set tariffs. The ruling vacated many of the tariffs implemented during the second Trump administration.
In February 2025, President Donald Trump announced tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and separately from China, citing the IEEPA as the statutory authority for doing so. After implementing other tariffs citing different statutory authorities, Trump announced the global Liberation Day tariffs also citing the IEEPA the following April. Multiple lawsuits from affected companies and U.S. states were filed shortly after this announcement, including both Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., challenging the president's authority to issue tariffs under IEEPA.
In Learning Resources, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the tariffs were unconstitutional in May 2025. In Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in May 2025 that the president does not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs in this way, and permanently enjoined the government from enforcing them. The CIT's ruling was upheld on appeal by the en banc Federal Circuit Appeals Court in August 2025. In both cases, the lower courts stayed their injunctions to allow Trump to appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted both petitions in September and consolidated them into a single case. The Court expedited scheduling of oral arguments, which were heard on November 5, 2025. Court observers believed a majority of the justices expressed skepticism towards the government's rationale for the tariffs during the oral session. In its opinion of February 20, 2026, the Court decided that this matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIT, and ordered the dismissal of the Learning Resources case from the District of Columbia court. The Court affirmed the CIT ruling in V.O.S. Selections against the tariffs, though did not rule on the manner of tariff repayment.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their provisional Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2025 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Ketanji JacksonWrote a concurrence
Elena KaganWrote a concurrence
Amy BarrettWrote a concurrence
Neil GorsuchWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Brett KavanaughWrote a dissent
Clarence ThomasWrote a dissent
Samuel AlitoJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The 2025 scores are provisional. The official Martin–Quinn release does not cover this term yet, so the scores are copied from Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin & Michael J. Nelson, Provisional Data Report on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 Term, Table 3.1 (scores by Kevin Quinn), published 2026-06-30. They will be replaced by the official scores when those come out, and may change. The median line is the middle of these nine scores.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Learning ResourcesTaxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only
- Respondent
- TrumpGovernmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (United States)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28 U.S.C. 11581
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Feb 20, 2026DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: vacated. Learning Resources won.
- Nov 5, 2025ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: unusual disposition.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states, newest first.
- Trump v. SlaughterLandmark · Separation of powers146 S. Ct. 2283Jun 29, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2283MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers6–36–3 band
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited601 U.S. 416May 16, 2024 · 601 U.S. 416Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- Collins v. Yellen141 S. Ct. 1761Jun 23, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1761Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- United States v. Arthrex Inc.141 S. Ct. 1970Jun 21, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1970Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
- Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPLandmark · Domestic140 S. Ct. 2019Jul 9, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2019MiscellaneousLandmark · Domestic7–27–2 band
- Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau140 S. Ct. 2183Jun 29, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2183Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
- NLRB v. SW General, Inc.137 S. Ct. 929Mar 21, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 929Miscellaneous6–27–2 band
- Zivotofsky v. KerryLandmark · Foreign576 U.S. 1Jun 8, 2015 · 576 U.S. 1MiscellaneousLandmark · Foreign6–36–3 band
- NLRB v. Noel CanningLandmark · Separation of powers573 U.S. 513Jun 26, 2014 · 573 U.S. 513MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers9–0Unanimous band
- Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, by His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. and Naomi Siegman Zivotofsky, Petitioner v. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State566 U.S. 189Mar 26, 2012 · 566 U.S. 189Miscellaneous8–18–1 band
- Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al.561 U.S. 477Jun 28, 2010 · 561 U.S. 477Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.