by Dennis Crouch
Although it is a non-patent tariff case, I have been writing about Trump v. V.O.S. because of its pathway through the Federal Circuit – a court that I write about on a daily basis. The court seems to have skillfully avoided the brunt of President Trump’s ire even while ultimately holding that the President’s tariffs represent an unconstitutional action that go beyond the powers delegated by Congress. The Department of Justice quickly filed a petition for certiorari, and the Supreme Court has now granted cert alongside a second case appealed from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The cases are consolidated with expedited briefing over the next two months with oral arguments to be held in November 2025.
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., No. 25-250, the Court will address fundamental questions about the scope of presidential power to regulate international trade during declared national emergencies. The cases challenge Trump’s “Trafficking Tariffs” (imposing duties on all goods from Canada, China, and Mexico as leverage against on fentanyl import concerns) and “Reciprocal Tariffs” (applying across-the-board duties of 10-50% on imports from virtually all other countries to address imbalances in the trade in goods). The Federal Circuit struck down the tariffs in a 7-4 en banc decision in August 2025, finding that IEEPA’s grant of power to “regulate” imports may include some tariff setting, but it does not encompass the virtually unlimited tariff authority sought by the President. The Learning Resources case is not based upon a substantive ruling from the D.C. Circuit, but only a stay of lower court injunctions.
We have overlapping questions from the two cases:
- Learning Resources: Whether IEEPA authorizes the President to
impose tariffs. - V.O.S. 1. Whether IEEPA authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Trump; and 2. If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the President.
Statutory Interpretation Framework: The central dispute turns on interpreting IEEPA’s authorization for the President, after declaring a national emergency in response to an “unusual and extraordinary” foreign threat, to “investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit” economic transactions involving foreign entities.
The following are competing introductions from the briefing thus far:
This case addresses the validity of the Administration’s most significant economic and foreign-policy initiative—the imposition of tariffs under IEEPA, which President Trump has determined are necessary to rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl across our borders.
vs.
For the first time in American history, the President of the United States has imposed massive tariffs on American importers of goods from every country in the world, on a permanent (though ever-shifting) basis, in amounts far exceeding the tariff schedules enacted by Congress, and in disregard of the numerous statutes in which Congress has delegated tariff authority that is both narrower and subject to intelligible and judicially enforceable limits that these tariffs violate.
My expectation here is that President Trump’s authority will be recognized – with the majority doing it through statutory construction of IEEPA rather than presidential powers.
Re the above:”My expectation here is that President Trump’s authority will be recognized – with the majority doing it through statutory construction of IEEPA rather than presidential powers.”
Quite possibly, but more than a little ironically, since that would require unusually broad interpretations of the scope of his Congressional power delegation in that statute, i.e., the statutory delegation-limiting words noted above. However, some of the conservative justices most likely to support that have supported NARROW interpretations of such delegation scope! In recent EPA cases, etc. They have also expressed or demonstrated skepticism of Constitutionally designated Congressional powers delegations in general.
The Admin argues that an important element of this case is its focus on international trade, national security, and emergency powers — all issues where the courts have tended to give the President more power and leeway.