UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (Feb. 20, 2026). It is complicated and ultimately results in remand to the district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (in favor of the U.S. Court of International Trade). But the holding is clear: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the President the power to impose the tariffs. Curly's right, though: the opinion does not speak to what happens to the tariffs already collected.

The Justice breakdown alone is convoluted, but it is basically 6-3:

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which GORSUCH and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., and BARRETT, J., filed concurring opinions. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.

A few paragraphs from Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the Court:

We decide whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.

* * *

(page 5)
Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—“regulate” and “importation”—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.

* * *
(pages 9-10)
Against this backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs. On this reading, moreover, the President is unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes and free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will. See supra, at 3. All it takes to unlock that extraordinary power is a Presidential declaration of emergency, which the Government asserts is unreviewable. Brief for Federal Parties 42. And the only way of restraining the exercise of that power is a veto-proof majority in Congress. See 50 U. S. C. §1622(a)(1) (requiring a “joint resolution” “enacted into law” to terminate a national emergency). That view, if credited, would “represent[] a ‘transformative expansion’” of the President’s authority over tariff policy, West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 724 (quoting Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324), and indeed—as demonstrated by the exercise of that authority in this case—over the broader economy as well. See Congressional Budget Office, CBO’s Current View of the Economy From 2025 to 2028, p. 5 (Sept. 2025); Brief for Federal Parties 2–3. It would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking. See CRS, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy (2015). Congress seldom effects such sea changes through “vague language.” West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 724.

* * *
(page 13)
The central thrust of the Government’s and the principal dissent’s proposed exceptions appears to be that ambiguous delegations in statutes addressing “the most major of major questions” should necessarily be construed broadly. Brief for Federal Parties 35. But it simply does not follow from the fact that a statute deals with major problems that it should be read to delegate all major powers for which there may be a “colorable textual basis.” West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 722. It is in precisely such cases that we should be alert to claims that sweeping delegations—particularly delegations of core congressional powers—“lurk[]” in “ambiguous statutory text.” Id., at 723 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine.

Accordingly, the President must “point to clear congressional authorization” to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). He cannot.

* * *
(pages 20-21)
The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.

IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation” falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word “regulate” to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.

We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

Right. The same word salad he used to give us Obamacare.

The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word “regulate” to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.

But let's see how the Court reacts tio other common sense issues... like the identities of men and women.

any day...and thot's how we know that Trump's Tariffs have been illegal...and counterproductive.

As for the simplistic and poorly informed opinion that being an LGBTQ person is a choice...our best psychological and medical minds...along with other scholarly institutions like the University of Notre Dame, say it is not...based on Critical Thinking and Prudential Judgement.


Link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-of-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense

(no message)

(no message)

It won't matter anyway, the tariffs will stay under a new rationale.

It will be interesting to see how stocks in companies seeking refunds will perform.

I suspect they won't be refunding any such windfall to the consumers.

I read a while back that the have been working on the way to keep things going if this did happen. Read the dissent, very telling. Roberts here is trying to safe face-hey you can't use IEPPA but we did not say that you could not use some other rationale.

As an attorney... that makes me smile.

It will be interesting.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Like I said, you haven’t been paying attention or you’re just being willfully dumb. The latter being most likely.

From Time Magazine January 22/26

“ President Donald Trump is once again floating the idea of running for another term.

“RECORD NUMBERS ALL OVER THE PLACE! SHOULD I TRY FOR A FOURTH TERM?” he wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening.

The Constitution prohibits Trump from serving another term; the 22nd Amendment reads: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

“ But Trump and his allies have repeatedly suggested the possibility of him running for office again. Last year, the Trump Organization started selling hats that say “Trump 2028” and t-shirts that say “Trump 2028 (Rewrite the Rules).”

In October, the President told reporters that he “would love to” run for another term. When reporters questioned if he was ruling out the idea, he replied, “Am I not ruling it out? I mean, you’ll have to tell me.” Just days before that, his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who has supported the idea of Trump serving another term, told The Economist that there is a “plan” to get around the 22nd Amendment. Bannon didn’t share what the plan entailed, but said there are “many different alternatives” and the details would be shared “at the appropriate time.”

(no message)

(no message)

That was not addressed by the Court.

IEEPA gives the president emergency powers. Not sure what other act he could refer to. But maybe his people get creative.

That's all Constitutional

Link: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/trump-tariff-powers-ieepa-section-232-section-301/802388/

(no message)

(no message)