Opinion Summary: Trump Tariffs Cases

Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. | Oral Argument: November 5, 2025 | Case No. 25-250 | Docket Link: Here

Consolidated with: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump | Case No. 24-1287 | Docket Link: Here

Overview

Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Trump Tariff cases—Trump versus V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources versus Trump—a constitutional clash over tariffs and separation of powers. President Trump put sweeping tariffs on trillions of dollars in imports using a 1977 emergency law that says he can "regulate" trade—but the law never mentions tariffs, duties, or taxes, and the Constitution gives only Congress the power to tax.

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner (Federal Parties): D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2. For Respondent (Private Parties): Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D.C.
3. For Respondent (State Parties): Benjamin N. Gutman, Solicitor General, Salem, Oregon

Question Presented: Whether the President can impose tariffs under IEEPA.

Holding: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3.

Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined.

Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion.

Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.

Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.

Reasoning:

Majority (Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson)

The Constitution gives Congress alone the power to tax, and tariffs represent a tax on imports. IEEPA's authority to "regulate importation" lets the President control, restrict, or block foreign transactions—but it never gave him power to reach into Americans' pockets by imposing taxes Congress never authorized.

Gorsuch Concurrence

The major questions doctrine protects Congress's lawmaking power by requiring clear authorization before the President can claim extraordinary authority, and that principle traces back centuries through English and American law. When Congress wants to hand over its most fundamental power—the power to tax—it must speak clearly, and IEEPA's generic emergency language falls far short.

Barrett Concurrence

Courts interpret statutes using context and common sense, and any reasonable reader would expect Congress to make trillion-dollar tax policy decisions itself rather than hiding them in vague emergency language. The major questions doctrine simply reflects ordinary interpretation informed by constitutional structure—not some special thumb on the scale against executive power.

Kagan Concurrence (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson)

No special doctrine needed here—"regulate" simply doesn't mean "tax" in any dictionary, any statute, or any universe where words retain their ordinary meaning. When Congress actually delegates tariff power, it uses words like "duty" and "surcharge" and imposes strict limits; IEEPA does none of that.

Jackson Concurrence

The official congressional reports accompanying IEEPA describe the law as granting "freezing control" authority over foreign property—not power to tax imports. Courts should examine what Congress actually said it intended, not speculate about what makes sense to judges decades later.

Kavanaugh Dissent (joined by Justices Thomas and Alito)

Text, history, and precedent all confirm that "regulate importation" includes tariffs—President Nixon used identical language for worldwide tariffs in 1971, courts upheld it, and Congress copied that exact phrase into IEEPA six years later. The Court's decision extends the major questions doctrine into foreign affairs for the first time, potentially handcuffing future Presidents when America faces genuine emergencies requiring rapid trade responses.

Thomas Dissent

The Constitution only prevents Congress from delegating "core legislative power" over life, liberty, and property—but regulating foreign trade involves privileges the government grants, not fundamental rights it must protect. Congress can freely delegate tariff authority to the President, and it did so through IEEPA's broad emergency powers.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner (Federal Parties): D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2. For Respondent (Private Parties): Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D.C.
3. For Respondent (State Parties): Benjamin N. Gutman, Solicitor General, Salem, Oregon

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Episode Intro

[00:05:13] Opinion by the Page Count

[00:06:26] Tariff Timeline

[00:07:55] Tariff Lawsuits

[00:08:41] Roberts Majority Opinion

[00:19:03] Gorsuch Concurring Opinion

[00:20:42] Justice Barrett Concurring Opinion

[00:21:57] Justice Kagan Concurring Opinion

[00:23:25] Justice Jackson Concurring Opinion

[00:24:36] Kavanaugh Dissenting Opinion

[00:31:49] Justice Thomas Dissenting Opinion

[00:33:17] Implications

[00:36:28] Bottom Line