On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump (and by extension, the companion case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections) that overturned tariffs proposed by Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The case was decided 6-3, with Justices Roberts, Gorsuch, Coney-Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown-Jackson in the majority of the decision, and Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito in the minority; a narrower part of the ruling was decided by a plurality of Roberts, Gorsuch, and Coney-Barrett. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority and plurality opinions.
The cases were filed by two separate groups, Learning Resources Inc. and V.O.S. Selections, in response to tariffs imposed by Trump against other countries (particularly Canada, Mexico, and China) early in his term. Both alleged that it was an overreach of presidential authority to use IEEPA, a law originally passed as a wartime resource for national security, to impose tariffs to address drug trafficking and trade deficits. The government argued that the authority under IEEPA was broad enough to encompass these tariffs. Learning Resources and V.O.S. Selections were filed separately, though due to the overlapping cases and arguments, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision in one would be binding in the other.
Roberts’ opinion centered on the issue of Congressional ambiguity in crafting statutes like IEEPA. Many major laws have some amount of ambiguity in them, both by design and accident. Sometimes it’s included as a way of providing flexibility to work within various unpredictable situations in the future; other times, it’s simple a consequence of poor definitions or language in a law. The central argument in this case came down to if extending IEEPA to cover these tariffs was within the law’s ambiguity. The government argued it was within the law’s ambiguity, while the plaintiffs argued otherwise.
The ruling was divided multiple parts: I, II-A-1, II-A-2, II-B, and III. The difference between all of them is not significant, though there are a couple different groups that are worth discussing. I, II-A-1, and II-B contain the main decision, where the Court rules the case in favor of Learning Resources, Inc., as well as the reasoning. This is what the majority decided. This case is now considered “binding precedent” on the issues of the case – in this situation, if IEEPA authorizes the president to impose such broad tariffs – so if it comes up again in lower courts, this decision should be applied to their case.
II-A-2 and III were decided by a plurality, but not a majority. This means that what was held within there should be considered guidance for lower courts and future decisions, but not binding authority (where the courts have to follow it in sufficiently similar cases). Normally, plurality decisions are not particularly potent, as they are guidance and not law. However, in this case specifically, I do think it is worth discussing, as this plurality will likely be a central argument in cases for and against the government moving forward. As explained above, the decision rested on whether or not this use of tariffs fell within IEEPA’s ambiguity. The plurality decision expanded this to cover a much broader swathe of laws. Quoting from the Roberts decision, “In several cases described as involving ‘major questions,’ the Court has reasoned that ‘both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent’ suggest Congress would not have delegated ‘highly consequential power’ through ambiguous language.” Essentially, II-A-2 and III proposed that the standard in this case that Congressional ambiguity in delegation should be read to be as restrictive as reasonably possible on the president’s exercise of those delegated powers.
It’s not expected that this will change the life of consumers substantially, with most financial experts agreeing companies are unlikely to lower their prices based on their lower costs without having to pay tariffs. Some researchers (such as those responsible for the Wharton Budget Models) have suggested that up to $175 billion in tariffs collected under Trump’s use of IEEPA may be eligible for refunds. However, Trump has already announced his intent to use other authority, such as the 1974 Trade Act, to reimpose tariffs. (As of the writing of this article, he has not done so.) It’s unclear how much of a chance these would have at surviving judicial review.
Responses to this decision have been fairly positive, with a considerable majority of people supporting ending tariffs. Several members of Congress on both sides have come out in favor of the decision. In particular, Senator Mitch McConnell cited Congress’s powers of the purse under Article I of the Constitution. Trump and JD Vance were highly critical of the ruling, however, with Vance referring to it as “lawlessness from the Court” and Trump calling the decision “terrible” and “an embarrassment”. Trump had previously said any Republicans who opposed his tariffs would “suffer the consequences come [e]lection time.”