On March 10, Megan Barbero and Courtney Dixon published “Lessons From Justices' Split On Major Questions Doctrine” in Law360. The following is an excerpt:
On Feb. 20, in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court concluded that IEEPA's authority to regulate importation does not include the power to impose tariffs.
That holding has significant implications for trade policy—indeed, the U.S. Court of International Trade has already indicated that the government is required to refund any IEEPA tariffs, even for importers that have not filed suits seeking refunds.
But beyond trade, the court's decision is also an important development for the separation of powers and provides a meaningful window into the court's approach to the major questions doctrine. The decision will likely shape how lower courts approach executive actions and assertions of agency power in a wide range of challenges.
For the full article, click here.