Supreme Court Still Silent on Trump IEEPA Tariff Case Three Months After Expedited Arguments
Nearly three months after the Supreme Court fast‑tracked November oral arguments in the consolidated challenge Learning Resources, Inc. and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump over the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, the Court has yet to issue a decision and instead released three unrelated unanimous opinions. The outcome—one that justices probed with skepticism under the major‑questions and nondelegation doctrines—could affect hundreds of billions in duties already collected, leave tariffs in place while lower courts and businesses press refund suits, and prompt the administration to pursue alternative authorities if it loses.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court has not yet decided the consolidated Trump IEEPA tariff case nearly three months after expedited November arguments, despite earlier expectations of a quick ruling; the Court released several lower-profile opinions instead.
- The lead consolidated case is Learning Resources, Inc. and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, brought by an educational toy maker and a family-owned wine and spirits importer.
- The Biden/Trump administration has invoked IEEPA to impose five distinct tariff programs (reciprocal tariffs, fentanyl-related tariffs, tariffs tied to Russian oil measures currently levied on Indian goods, Brazil-related tariffs, and certain trade-agreement–linked tariffs), generating large duty collections: Treasury data show $215.2 billion in FY2025, a spike in monthly duties from $9.6 billion in March to $23.9 billion in May after the April tariffs, and more than $133 billion collected by mid‑December.
- The contested tariffs remain in place during litigation; hundreds of U.S. businesses have filed or are preparing refund suits, and the Court of International Trade and DOJ are coordinating case-management plans to handle potentially thousands of claims if the tariffs are ruled unlawful.
- At November oral arguments many justices—both conservative and liberal—expressed skepticism about using IEEPA to impose tariffs, focusing on the major questions and nondelegation doctrines; the Court of International Trade previously held the president does not have 'unbounded authority' under IEEPA.
- The administration concedes IEEPA does not expressly authorize tariffs but argues tariff power is a 'natural common-sense inference' from the statute (per Solicitor General D. John Sauer), while plaintiffs contend Congress did not delegate such sweeping taxing/importation authority through vague language that does not mention 'tariffs.'
- President Trump and administration officials have framed the case as urgently tied to economic security—Trump called it 'literally LIFE OR DEATH' and proposed using tariff revenue for $2,000 dividend checks and debt reduction—while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trump’s lawyers warned a delayed ruling could heighten economic disruption.
- Outside Supreme Court practitioners say there is no clear evidence the justices are intentionally delaying for political reasons; possible explanations for the lengthy turnaround include a closely divided Court, time-consuming dissent drafting, and an overall slower pace this Term amid an influx of emergency appeals (the modern average turnaround is just over three months).
📊 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 (7)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
January 28, 2026
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