The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources v. Trump ruled 6-3 that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing broad global tariffs, as the statute does not explicitly grant the president power to tax imports. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution reserves taxing power to Congress alone, and since tariffs are taxes on imports, any such authority must be clearly delegated by Congress—which IEEPA does not do. However, the justices sharply disagreed on the reasoning, producing multiple opinions that intertwined statutory interpretation with the nondelegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine, leaving the legal landscape unsettled.

This fractured ruling complicates the application of the nondelegation doctrine, which requires Congress to provide an “intelligible principle” when delegating legislative power, a standard rarely used to strike down statutes since 1935. The Court’s blending of nondelegation concerns with the major questions doctrine—requiring clear congressional authorization for decisions of vast economic and political significance—has created confusion about when and how these doctrines apply. As a result, lower courts face uncertainty in evaluating congressional delegations, especially amid ongoing challenges to executive actions from the Trump era, with few clear guiding principles emerging from the Supreme Court’s divided opinions.