The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump will have immediate political effects, substantial economic effects, and more subtle but long-run effects on the shape of the law. Doctrinally, its significance may seem limited because the opinions fracture on nearly everything beyond a single issue under a specific statute—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Six members of the Court agreed only that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Even on that conclusion, however, the justices split into two camps: one relied on the major questions doctrine, namely that because of the extraordinary power claimed, Congress had to speak more clearly than it did, while the other concluded the president’s lack of authority was manifest without reliance on any clear-statement rule.

Nevertheless, the case is still significant for the separation of powers. Underlying all opinions of the justices in the majority is the shared premise that tariffs function as taxes and thus are within the purview of Congress’s power of the purse. A declaration of emergency does not shift authority to the president. In this sense, Learning Resources reasserts Congress’s primacy.