[24-1287] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

11 snips

Nov 5, 2025

Guest

Mr. Gutman

Join General Sauer, Counsel for the government, as he defends the President's use of IEEPA to implement aggressive tariffs, arguing its constitutional basis. Mr. Cotill challenges this view, presenting compelling textual and historical arguments about the limits of presidential power over taxation. Meanwhile, Mr. Gutman highlights issues regarding licensing fees and the historical context of tariffs. The discussions delve into whether tariffs serve as taxes or regulatory tools, making for an engaging debate on governmental authority and economic effects.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Books

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Court Questions Broad 'Regulate' Reading

Justices probed whether 'regulate' in other statutes ever implied taxing power; petitioners say no, governments point to specific historical pedigree.
The Court repeatedly asked for textual anchors beyond broad verbs to justify tariff authority.

ANECDOTE

Nixon's 1971 Worldwide Tariff Example

General Sauer cited President Nixon's 1971 10% across‑the‑board tariffs as an historical example of executive tariff use.
He noted those tariffs aimed to press trading partners to negotiate and were followed by the Smithsonian Agreement.

INSIGHT

Youngstown And Dames & Moore Themes Repeated

Government invokes Dames & Moore and Youngstown themes to justify broad presidential emergency powers in foreign affairs.
They argue IEPA's 'sweeping' verbs reflect congressional intent to grant major tools to the President for foreign crises.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

Justia · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Nov 5, 2025.

Petitioner: Learning Resources, Inc., et al.
Respondent: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.

Advocates:

D. John Sauer (for the federal parties)
Neal Kumar Katyal (for the private parties)
Benjamin Gutman (for the state parties)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind, Inc. are family-owned businesses that design and distribute educational products for children. Although their product development and some assembly occur domestically, most of their manufacturing is outsourced to international partners, including China. Beginning in early 2025, a series of executive orders from President Donald J. Trump, invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), imposed unprecedented tariffs on imports, including goods from China. These included a 20% “trafficking” tariff and additional “reciprocal” tariffs that pushed rates on Chinese goods to over 145%. Petitioners’ imports were directly affected, and complying with the new tariffs would increase their import-related costs from $2.3 million in 2024 to over $100 million in 2025, putting their businesses at existential risk.

The petitioners filed suit on April 22, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the legality of the IEEPA tariffs. The district court granted a preliminary injunction on May 29, 2025, holding that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs and finding that the tariffs posed an existential threat to the petitioners. However, that ruling was stayed just days later, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit docketed the case. Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled similarly in related cases but its decision was also stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Question

Does the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), authorize the president to impose tariffs?