This episode of 5-4 features hosts Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael analyzing Learning Resources v. Trump, a major Supreme Court case about presidential tariff powers decided on February 20, 2025.

The case arose from Trump's executive orders imposing tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada, China, and eventually expanded to nearly every country on Earth, justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) during declared national emergencies.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Trump, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion joined by Barrett, Gorsuch, and all three liberal justices, finding that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs.

The decision produced multiple concurrences and a lengthy dissent from Kavanaugh, along with reactions from Trump calling his own appointees an 'embarrassment to their families' and media coverage declaring the court's 'independence' from Trump.

Trump's Tariff Implementation Under Emergency Powers

Trump imposed tariffs starting February 2025 on Canada, Mexico, and China, then expanded in April 2025 to nearly all countries with 10% base rate and higher rates for 60+ additional nations.

Trump justified tariffs under IEEPA by declaring national emergencies for fentanyl trafficking and trade deficits, calling April 2025 'Liberation Day' when broader tariffs took effect.

The tariffs were designed as both national security measures against specific countries and 'reciprocal tariffs' calculated based on trade surplus imbalances with the United States.

Roberts Majority Rejects Presidential Tariff Authority

Roberts wrote that 'regulate importation' does not ordinarily include taxing power, noting IEEPA never references tariffs or duties and no president has ever interpreted the law this way historically.

The Constitution expressly grants Congress, not the president, the power to impose duties and taxes, requiring clear delegation language for presidential authority.

Roberts applied major questions doctrine in section joined only by Barrett and Gorsuch, while liberals refused to join this portion despite agreeing on the outcome.

Jackson's Solo Defense of Legislative History

Jackson wrote solo concurrence examining House and Senate committee reports to understand IEEPA's intent, resurrecting use of legislative history materials.

Her approach challenges conservative textualist orthodoxy that rejects legislative history as unreliable, arguing 'we lost this battle 30 years ago' but 'we were right.'

The concurrence represents old-school interpretive methodology that considers congressional committee findings and reasoning behind legislation.

Thomas's Bizarre Non-Delegation Theory

Thomas argued Congress can delegate tariff power indefinitely to the president because taxation is not a 'core legislative power' involving 'deprivation of life, liberty, and property.'

Thomas cited British common law and the king's taxing power, prompting Gorsuch to note 'we fought a fucking war about that' over tariffs and royal prerogatives.

The dissent contradicts established precedent treating taxation as fundamental congressional power, including the Obamacare decision upholding the individual mandate as valid tax.

Kavanaugh's Pro-Trump Dissent and Policy Arguments

Kavanaugh wrote 63-page dissent arguing tariffs are 'traditional and common tool to regulate importation' and suggesting other federal statutes 'might justify most if not all of the tariffs.'

The dissent praised Trump's foreign policy, claiming tariffs 'helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars, including with foreign nations from China to the UK to Japan.'

Kavanaugh argued Congress could show disapproval by 'not approving annual appropriations' for tariff implementation, ignoring that CBP collects tariffs automatically without congressional oversight.

Gorsuch's Scathing Attack on Fellow Justices

Gorsuch wrote concurrence attacking Thomas directly: 'Justice Thomas suggests that Congress may hand over most of its constitutionally vested powers to the president completely and forever.'

He mocked major questions doctrine applications, noting court ruled 'air pollutant does not include greenhouse gases, even though those greenhouse gases pollute the air.'

Gorsuch dismissed Kavanaugh's foreign affairs exception, asking 'Are we really to believe that the Patriots that night in Boston Harbor considered the whole of the tariff power some kingly prerogative?'

Refund Chaos and Court of International Trade Orders

Court of International Trade judge ordered CBP to refund all tariff payments after Supreme Court decision, telling government 'there are no merits' to brief against refunds.

CBP submitted filing requesting month and a half to reprogram automated systems and create claims process for companies to recover tariff payments.

Companies will likely receive refunds while consumers who paid pass-through costs have no mechanism for recovery, creating billions in potential liability.

Trump's Reaction and Media Coverage Delusions

Trump called Gorsuch and Barrett 'embarrassment to their families' while posting 'My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh' on Truth Social.

New York Times declared case a 'Declaration of Independence' from Trump despite his 'extraordinarily successful run before the Supreme Court' in 2024-2025.

Linda Greenhouse falsely described Roberts as 'characteristically a model of succinctness' when empirical data shows his opinions tend to be longer than average.