The Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments today in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case central to the survival of President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging tariff regime imposed beginning in April.
The core question in the case is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president the ability to impose tariffs. Trump invoked the act earlier this year — the first time since it was enacted in 1977 that it was used to impose tariffs.
On Monday, The Journalist’s Resource and Econofact co-hosted an hourlong webinar to explore the case and how it fits within the Trump administration’s efforts to expand the powers of the executive branch, at the expense of congressional power.
I moderated the discussion with:
- Naomi Lamoreaux, the Stanley B. Resor Professor Emeritus of Economics and History at Yale University, senior research scholar at the University of Michigan Law School and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Oren Tamir, an associate professor of law at the University of Arizona who teaches about administrative law, constitutional law and comparative public law.
- Michael Klein, the William L. Clayton Professor of International Economic Affairs at Tufts University and founder of Econofact.
The important legal consideration in the Learning Resources case is something called the major questions doctrine. At the Supreme Court level, the doctrine was established in 2022 in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the court by a 6-3 majority curtailed the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The idea behind the major questions doctrine is that Congress needs to explicitly authorize executive branch actions that have “major” effects on politics or the economy.
“What the major questions doctrine requires is a clear authorization — not something broad or vague — that would signal to outside observers that when Congress gave the power to the executive branch, it had more clearly in mind the kind of major policy that the executive is trying to do,” Tamir said during the webinar.
The petitioners who brought the tariff case, Learning Resources Inc., make educational toys produced largely in Asian countries subject to the Trump tariffs. They argue the tariff regime constitutes a major question and the president lacks explicit Congressional authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The outcome of this case could also affect the future of the administrative state — shorthand for the agencies that make up the federal government. A ruling that relies on the major questions doctrine to strike down tariffs under IEEPA would serve to curtail presidential power to a degree, the panelists explained, while affirming Congress’ ability to delegate authority to agencies.
But, they noted, the outcome of the case is far from certain. Watch the full discussion above and keep reading for three takeaways for journalists covering this case and others affecting executive powers.
1. The administrative state has existed since the nation’s founding.
While many Americans have become familiar with the conspiracy-minded term “deep state” since Trump began using it during his first administration, the “administrative state” is legitimate and real. It has existed since the nation’s founding and employs people who, by and large, are dedicated to public service.
The administrative state refers to the presidential cabinet agencies and independent federal agencies that regulate industries, enforce laws and administer programs, Lamoreaux explained. The people employed by these agencies are civil servants.
“What makes them civil servants is they are protected from political interference,” Lamoreaux said. “They can only be fired for cause.”
The number of agencies within the administrative state grew steadily during the 19th century, expanded greatly during President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal era of the 1930s and grew again during the 1960s and 1970s.
While agency heads are political appointees and often change with presidential administrations, civil servants comprise the bulk of the administrative state. They often take examinations to qualify for their jobs or they have to hold other qualifications, such as a medical degree or doctorate.
“They’re hired for their expertise and they’re protected from political tampering,” Lamoreaux explained.
2. A ruling against Trump doesn’t necessarily mean the end of tariffs.
Even if the Supreme Court rules that the Trump administration exceeded its authority in invoking IEEPA to impose tariffs, the president could use other laws to set tariffs.
Those laws require that federal agencies review the circumstances of proposed tariffs before they can be imposed. But the administration could pursue them, Tamir said.
While the broad tariff regime has been imposed under IEEPA, Trump has also used other federal statutes, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, for other tariffs, such as steel and aluminum tariffs in 2018. That section requires the Department of Commerce to investigate whether imports “threaten to impair” national security before tariffs can be imposed.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested the Trump administration could still impose tariffs when he told CNBC on Tuesday: “There are lots of other authorities that can be used, but IEEPA is by far the cleanest, and it gives the U.S. and the president the most negotiating authority. The others are more cumbersome, but they can be effective.”
3. The questions justices ask during oral arguments may reveal which way the court is leaning.
In recent rulings, the Supreme Court has suggested that applying the major questions doctrine could depend on whether the issue at hand concerns foreign or domestic policy.
Tamir explained that the court has reasoned that Congress has more authority over domestic issues while the executive branch tends to take a larger role in foreign policy affairs.
The court could, in other words, decide that tariffs are a matter of foreign policy and that the major questions doctrine, as primarily applying to domestic policy, doesn’t apply in Learning Resources v. Trump.
“That would suggest a kind of weakening, if not a completely — an exception to the major questions doctrine,” Tamir said.
In their questions to attorneys arguing any case during oral arguments, Supreme Court justices may reveal their thinking — which way they might be leaning in terms of their ultimate decision. In this case, the questions from justices could suggest which justices, if any, think the major questions doctrine does not apply.
“A big part of why the case is sort of unclear in terms of how it will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court is whether the court would buy in more seriously to this idea that this is a foreign affairs case,” Tamir said.
The court, Tamir added, could also be reluctant to appear to be applying the major questions doctrine only to curtail the policies of Democratic presidential administrations, as it did in 2022 in West Virginia v. EPA.
“A court that is worried about its institutional reputation and perception, that wants to be seen as nonpartisan, as employing a doctrine in an impartial way, might actually be attracted to apply the major questions doctrine here,” he said.
Expert Commentary