Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. | Oral Argument: November 5, 2025 | Case No. 25-250 | Docket Link: Here Consolidated with: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump | Case No. 24-1287 | Docket Link: Here Overview Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Trump Tariff cases—Trump versus V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources versus Trump—a constitutional clash over tariffs and separation of powers. President Trump put sweeping tariffs on trillions of dollars in imports using a 1977 emergency law that says he can "regulate" trade—but the law never mentions tariffs, duties, or taxes, and the Constitution gives only Congress the power to tax. Oral Advocates: For Petitioner (Federal Parties): D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For Respondent (Private Parties): Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D.C.For Respondent (State Parties): Benjamin N. Gutman, Solicitor General, Salem, Oregon Question Presented: Whether the President can impose tariffs under IEEPA. Holding: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Chief Justice Roberts 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 Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Reasoning: Majority (Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson) The Constitution gives Congress alone the power to tax, and tariffs represent a tax on imports. IEEPA's authority to "regulate importation" lets the President control, restrict, or block foreign transactions—but it never gave him power to reach into Americans' pockets by imposing taxes Congress never authorized. Gorsuch Concurrence The major questions doctrine protects Congress's lawmaking power by requiring clear authorization before the President can claim extraordinary authority, and that principle traces back centuries through English and American law. When Congress wants to hand over its most fundamental power—the power to tax—it must speak clearly, and IEEPA's generic emergency language falls far short. Barrett Concurrence Courts interpret statutes using context and common sense, and any reasonable reader would expect Congress to make trillion-dollar tax policy decisions itself rather than hiding them in vague emergency language. The major questions doctrine simply reflects ordinary interpretation informed by constitutional structure—not some special thumb on the scale against executive power. Kagan Concurrence (joined by Justices Sotomayor and...
