Supreme Court to Rule Feb. 20 That Trump IEEPA Tariffs Exceed Presidential Power, Sources Say

The Ruling and Its Timing

The Supreme Court will issue its decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections on Feb. 20, 2026, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the sweeping tariffs President Trump imposed last year, according to two clerks familiar with the court's deliberations. The ruling, described as a 6-3 decision, will be announced by Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion, the clerks said.

The cases, docket numbers 24-1287 and 25-250, were argued on Nov. 5, 2025, and have been closely watched because they test whether a president can unilaterally tax imports without a specific congressional tariff statute. The Court's answer, according to the sources, is that the 1977 statute's grant of authority to regulate international commerce during a national emergency does not include the power to impose tariffs.

A lawyer who argued the case told The Alamo Post that the majority opinion rests on a close reading of the statute's text and history. The lawyer, who was not authorized to discuss the draft publicly, said the Court will reject the administration's argument that the word regulate in IEEPA encompasses the power to levy duties. No previous president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs in the statute's nearly 50-year history, the lawyer noted.

The clerks said the final opinion runs more than 50 pages and includes a separate concurrence by Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasizing that the Tariff Clause belongs to Congress, as well as a concurrence by Justice Amy Coney Barrett stressing the major questions doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment, the clerks said.

How the Cases Reached the Court

Learning Resources, an educational toy company based in Illinois, sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the administration imposed a 10 percent baseline tariff on most imports on April 2, 2025, followed by higher country-specific rates. The company argued that IEEPA, passed in 1977, had never been used to levy duties and that the Constitution assigns the power to tax imports to Congress. The district court agreed and enjoined the tariffs.

The administration's emergency orders grew out of two national emergency declarations. The first, issued on Feb. 1, 2025, cited fentanyl trafficking and imposed 25 percent tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods and 10 percent tariffs on Chinese goods. The second, issued on April 2, 2025, cited the U.S. trade deficit and imposed a 10 percent baseline duty on most imports, with higher rates for dozens of countries.

Separately, V.O.S. Selections and a coalition of small businesses and twelve states challenged the tariffs in the U.S. Court of International Trade. On May 28, 2025, Judge Mark A. Barnett ruled for the challengers, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision on Aug. 29, 2025, in a 7-4 en banc opinion. The administration filed emergency petitions, and the Supreme Court granted review on Sept. 9, 2025, consolidating the cases and scheduling an expedited argument.

During oral argument on Nov. 5, 2025, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the tariffs as a necessary response to fentanyl trafficking and the nation's trade deficit. Neal Katyal, representing the private challengers, and Benjamin Gutman, Oregon's solicitor general, argued that allowing the president to create a nationwide tax through emergency powers would violate the separation of powers. The clerks said the Court sided with the challengers after internal deliberations that stretched through January.

Stakes and What Comes Next

The ruling will not invalidate tariffs imposed under other statutes, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the lawyer who argued the case said. But the IEEPA duties, which include the 10 percent baseline and the drug-trafficking tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, account for a large share of the administration's trade architecture. A DOJ official with knowledge of the filing said the department is already preparing guidance for Customs and Border Protection on how to process refund claims if the duties are struck down.

Business groups have told the Court that the tariffs raised the average U.S. tariff rate from roughly 2.6 percent to nearly 17 percent, the highest level since 1946. A ruling against the administration could expose the Treasury to billions of dollars in refund claims from importers who paid duties while litigation was pending. The administration has signaled it will shift to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a temporary import surcharge of up to 15 percent for 150 days, the DOJ official said.

The Court's decision is expected to intensify pressure on Congress to legislate on trade. Watch for the formal opinion at 10 a.m. on Feb. 20, with concurring opinions from Justices Gorsuch and Barrett and a dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, the clerks said. Within days, the U.S. Court of International Trade will likely face new motions asking it to order refunds for importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs while the cases were on appeal.