Supreme Court Still Silent on Trump IEEPA Tariff Case Three Months After Expedited Arguments
Nearly three months after expedited oral arguments in November over the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, the Supreme Court has not issued a decision, extending legal and economic uncertainty. The consolidated case—brought by companies including an educational toy maker and a family‑owned wine and spirits importer—leaves tariffs in place while hundreds of businesses seek refunds, and observers say justices’ concerns about the major‑questions and nondelegation doctrines, a possible closely divided Court, and slow opinion drafting may explain the delay.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court has not issued a decision nearly three months after expedited November arguments in the consolidated IEEPA tariff case Learning Resources, Inc. and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump.
- The consolidated challenges were brought by an educational toy maker (Learning Resources) and a family‑owned wine and spirits importer (V.O.S. Selections).
- The administration has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose five distinct tariff programs: reciprocal tariffs; fentanyl‑related tariffs; tariffs tied to Russian oil import restrictions (levied on certain Indian goods); Brazil‑related tariffs; and tariffs tied to specific trade agreements structured under IEEPA — and those tariffs remain in place during the litigation.
- Government data show tariff collections have surged: Treasury reported $215.2 billion in total duties for FY2025 (including more than $98 billion since Oct. 1), monthly duties rose from $9.6 billion in March to $23.9 billion in May after April 'Liberation Day' tariffs, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection counted more than $133 billion collected as of mid‑December.
- Hundreds of U.S. businesses have filed or are preparing suits seeking refunds of higher duties; the administration and private trade lawyers are coordinating a case‑management plan at the U.S. Court of International Trade to handle potentially thousands of refund claims, and absent a specific Supreme Court remedy lower courts would need to fashion unwinding and refunds.
- At oral arguments in November, justices across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism about the administration’s use of IEEPA for tariffs, with extensive questioning about the major questions and nondelegation doctrines; the Court of International Trade had unanimously held the president does not have 'unbounded authority' to impose tariffs under IEEPA and invoked those doctrines.
- The government conceded IEEPA does not expressly authorize tariffs but argued tariff power is the 'natural common sense inference' or 'practical equivalent' of the statute’s text, while plaintiffs contend Congress could not have delegated such sweeping taxing/import‑regulation power through IEEPA’s vague authorization to 'regulate importation.'
- Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Trump’s lawyers urged the Court to decide quickly, warning that delay could heighten the 'risk of economic disruption'; legal experts and Supreme Court practitioners counter that a roughly three‑month turnaround is in line with modern averages and that a closely divided Court or time‑consuming separate opinions could explain the delay rather than political motivation.
- Trump and allies have framed the stakes in high terms — calling the case 'literally, LIFE OR DEATH' — and Trump has publicly proposed using tariff revenue for $2,000 dividend checks to low‑ and middle‑income Americans by mid‑2026 and applying remaining funds toward the national debt.
📊 Analysis & Commentary (2)
The Permanent Emergency
"A critical deep dive arguing that the administration’s routine use of emergency statutes — exemplified by the IEEPA tariff program now before the Supreme Court — creates a dangerous 'permanent emergency' that bypasses democratic checks, destabilizes markets and invites a judicial correction with large legal and fiscal consequences."
India’s Timid Economic Reforms
"The WSJ opinion argues that U.S. tariffs have pressured India into limited economic fixes, but those steps are overdue, timid, and insufficient — Modi needs a clearer, consistent commitment to free‑market reforms for real change."
📰 Source Timeline (8)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
January 28, 2026
6:32 PM
Months after hearing arguments, the Supreme Court has yet to decide on Trump's tariffs
New information:
- AP/PBS piece confirms that government lawyers, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, had publicly urged speed and warned that delay could heighten 'risk of economic disruption.'
- Provides expert context that the roughly three‑month delay is actually in line with the modern average Supreme Court turnaround time and does not, by itself, signal any particular outcome.
- Quotes Supreme Court practitioners and academics (e.g., Carter Phillips, Jonathan Adler) explaining that a wavering fifth vote or separate concurring/dissenting opinions could be slowing release, and notes the Court has been slower overall in argued cases due to a flood of Trump‑era emergency appeals.
5:18 AM
Three months after rapidly scheduled arguments, Supreme Court has yet to decide on Trump's tariffs
New information:
- Confirms that nearly three months have passed since November arguments in the Trump tariff case despite the Court’s expedited schedule.
- Notes that Trump’s lawyers and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stressed urgency, warning that a delayed ruling could increase risks of economic disruption.
- Quotes outside Supreme Court practitioners (e.g., Carter Phillips, Jonathan Adler) saying there is no evidence the justices are dragging their feet for political reasons and offering possible explanations such as a closely divided Court or slow dissent drafting.
- Cites Empirical SCOTUS data showing average modern turnaround just over three months and that this Term’s first argued decision did not appear until January, indicating overall slower pacing amid a flood of emergency appeals.
January 20, 2026
6:03 PM
Supreme Court keeps nation waiting on Trump tariff decision, releases 3 lower-profile opinions
New information:
- The Supreme Court did not issue its decision in the Trump IEEPA tariff challenge in its latest opinion release, prolonging uncertainty over the case.
- The Court issued three unanimous opinions: Berk v. Choy, Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, and Ellingburg v. United States.
- In Berk v. Choy, the Court held that Delaware’s medical-malpractice 'affidavit of merit' requirement does not apply in federal court because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure control.
- In Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton, the Court ruled that even challenges asserting a judgment is void must be brought within a 'reasonable time' under Rule 60(b)(4).
- In Ellingburg v. United States, the Court unanimously held that monetary restitution under the relevant federal statute is 'criminal punishment' for purposes of the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The piece links continued anticipation around the tariff ruling to Trump’s recent Truth Social threat to impose a 10% tariff on eight European countries unless they agree to a 'complete and total purchase of Greenland.'
January 16, 2026
1:11 AM
Trump's tariffs could be undone by one conservative doctrine: 'Life or death'
New information:
- Fox piece emphasizes that during November oral arguments several justices focused specifically on how the major questions doctrine constrains Trump’s use of IEEPA for tariffs, probing what 'guardrails' would exist on presidential power if they side with him.
- It reports plaintiffs’ framing that Congress cannot have delegated 'virtually unconstrained taxing power of such staggering economic effect' through IEEPA’s vague authorization to 'regulate importation,' stressing the lack of the word 'tariffs' in the statute.
- It adds detailed administration argumentation: Solicitor General D. John Sauer conceded IEEPA does not expressly authorize tariffs but called tariff power the 'natural common sense inference' from its text, and DOJ lawyers characterized IEEPA authority as the 'practical equivalent' of tariff power.
- The article quotes Trump’s Truth Social post on the eve of arguments calling the case 'literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country' and tying his stock‑market and 'economic security' narrative directly to the contested tariffs.
- It notes that the Court of International Trade unanimously held Trump does not have 'unbounded authority' to impose tariffs under IEEPA and explicitly invoked both the nondelegation and major questions doctrines as judicial checks on Congress handing away core powers.
January 13, 2026
January 08, 2026
10:24 PM
Supreme Court tariff ruling has Trump administration, US businesses bracing for impact
New information:
- Identifies the lead consolidated case as Learning Resources, Inc. and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump.
- Reports that more than $133 billion in IEEPA tariff duties had been collected as of mid-December, citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.
- Says hundreds of additional U.S. businesses have filed new lawsuits seeking to claw back higher duties paid under the IEEPA tariffs since the Supreme Court took the case.
- Quotes trade lawyer Erik Smithweiss describing joint work with the Justice Department on a case‑management plan at the Court of International Trade to handle thousands of potential refund suits if the tariffs are ruled unlawful.
- Notes that the tariffs remain in place during the litigation and that, absent a specific Supreme Court remedy, lower courts (particularly the CIT) would have to fashion how unwinding and refunds proceed.
5:44 PM
Trump's tariff boom hits record highs as Supreme Court showdown looms
New information:
- Confirms the Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision on Trump’s tariff authority under IEEPA on Friday, and that the consolidated challenges stem from lawsuits by an educational toy maker and a family-owned wine and spirits importer.
- Details that the Trump administration has invoked IEEPA to impose five distinct tariff programs: reciprocal tariffs, fentanyl‑related tariffs, tariffs tied to Russian oil imports currently levied on Indian goods, Brazil‑related tariffs, and certain trade agreements structured under IEEPA.
- Provides updated Treasury data showing total tariff (duty) collections reached $215.2 billion in FY 2025 and more than $98 billion since Oct. 1 of the new fiscal year, with monthly duties jumping from $9.6 billion in March to $23.9 billion in May after the April ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.
- Reiterates Trump’s plan, announced Nov. 9, to use tariff revenue for $2,000 dividend checks to low‑ and middle‑income Americans by mid‑2026 and to apply remaining funds toward the national debt, which the article oddly states is “just north of $38 billion.”
- Reports that during November oral arguments both conservative and liberal justices voiced skepticism about the legality of the administration’s use of IEEPA for these tariffs, and notes the administration says it could pivot to alternative authorities if it loses.
January 03, 2026