Following the Supreme Court’s decision against President Trump’s use of tariffs, I wanted to flag statements from two Cato Institute legal scholars on the decision.

Ilya Somin, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute:

“Today, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the President the power to ‘impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.’ It’s a major victory for the constitutional separation of powers, for free trade, and for the millions of American consumers and businesses enduring the higher taxes and higher prices as a result of these tariffs.”

Brent Skorup, Legal Fellow in the Cato Institute’s Robert A Levy Center for Constitutional Studies:

“The Supreme Court issued its decision today in one of the most significant cases of the term: Learning Resources v. Trump, the tariff case. At issue was whether the phrase “regulate importation” in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) could be stretched to authorize the president to raise or lower tariff rates at will.

In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Cato urged that interpretation in its amicus brief.

The case placed two important judicial impulses in tension: the Court’s longstanding deference to the Executive in matters of foreign affairs and its more recent skepticism of presidential efforts to stretch statutory text beyond recognition. Today, the Court chose to enforce meaningful limits.

For too long, Congress has delegated sweeping authority to the executive branch in ways that strain the separation-of-powers principles at the heart of our constitutional system. This decision restores an important boundary.”

To speak with Somin or Skorup further on the Supreme Court’s decision, contact Christopher Tarvardian.