Learning Cases: The Case That Redefined How the Supreme Court Judges Presidential Power

President Donald Trump displays a chart about reciprocal tariffs during an event in the White House Rose Garden on April 2, 2025. Courtesy of Daniel Torok.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump, the highly influential case involving a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s second term: tariffs. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the president’s sweeping tariffs, many of which he imposed in early 2025 via a flurry of executive orders. The Trump administration argued that ambiguous language in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gave the president broad authority to issue tariffs.

During oral arguments, Solicitor General John Sauer, on behalf of the government, said that “IEEPA confers major powers to address major problems on the President,” arguing that the statute clearly empowers President Trump to administer tariffs at his discretion. The Court, whose justices seemed skeptical of this argument just months ago, ultimately was not convinced. Authoring for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope…he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. IEEPA’s grant of authority…falls short.”

Shortly after, President Trump chastised the justices. Calling those in the majority “fools and lap dogs,” he also directly scolded the Democratic-leaning justices—Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—as a “disgrace to our nation.”

The president also took little time in striking back politically. Just hours after the ruling, President Trump took to social media to announce a new 10% global tariff on all countries, relying on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act instead of IEEPA. Importantly, unlike previous tariffs, this global tariff cannot exceed 150 days without a congressionally approved extension.

From questions about potential refunds to global markets struggling to find stability, the economic fallout from the decision could remain unsettled for some time. 

Similarly, the legal precedent set by Learning Resources is highly consequential. The ruling relied heavily on the “major questions doctrine,” a legal framework that helps judges and justices rule on cases involving authority between the legislative and executive branches. The major questions doctrine is invoked when a court encounters “major questions,” meaning actions of political or economic significance undertaken by the executive branch. The doctrine itself posits that when an executive branch entity takes on matters of vast political or economic significance, it must have clear congressional authorization to do so.

In this case, the Court was determining whether IEEPA granted President Trump clear congressional authorization to issue his broad global tariffs, which are politically and economically significant. Ultimately, the Court found IEEPA did not confer that power.

As such, the major questions doctrine could now be seen as a powerful check on the executive branch, though that has not always been the case. From 1984 to 2024, the Court applied the “Chevron doctrine”— named after Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council—which encouraged courts to defer to an executive agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.

Only recently, in Loper v. Riamondo in 2024, did the Court abandon this doctrine and favor “independent judgment” in deciding whether an executive agency overstepped its authority. Now, Learning Resources illustrates that the Court has swung in the opposite direction from the Chevron doctrine’s reasoning: the executive no longer benefits from deference when exercising high power under ambiguous laws; Congress holds the ultimate authority.

This could mark the beginning of a new era of judicial interpretation—one that coincides with unprecedented attempts to push the limits of executive power. However, particularly with the Supreme Court, it is better to proceed cautiously before concluding that the Court has fundamentally altered its approach to an entire area of constitutional law. 

That is because the justices are still torn over what exactly the major questions doctrine means, and if it even exists at all. 

Even though they joined the majority because their reasoning led to the same judicial conclusion, the three liberal justices—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—reject the major questions doctrine as a separate doctrine entirely. Instead, they believe that routine statutory interpretation plays the same role and that the doctrine itself is “unnecessary.” The other six conservative members acknowledge that the doctrine exists but are split over how much territory it should cover. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts contend that the doctrine does apply to President Trump’s tariffs and that there should be no exceptions. Chief Justice Roberts illustrated this by writing, “There is no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine.” 

On the other hand, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas disagree. They maintain that the doctrine should not apply to foreign affairs. In their view, tariffs, despite enormous domestic impact, are best understood as an exercise of the president’s foreign affairs power, to which he is afforded significant leeway.

So, while some view Learning Resources as cut-and-dry, the reality is more nuanced. Undoubtedly, the Court ruled that President Trump cannot impose global tariffs under IEEPA. However, as we have seen, the Trump administration is hard-set on finding other avenues to keep tariffs alive and possibly issue new ones. Compounding the overall uncertainty, the main legal instrument to strip away President Trump’s tariff power is still hotly disputed in the nation’s highest court. While the case affirmed the major questions doctrine as a crucial tool to check executive power, one can only wait and see whether the Court will use that tool again.