According to Forbes, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on November 5 in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case challenging whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes presidents to impose tariffs. The petitioners, two educational toy companies, argue that while Congress can delegate tariff authority, it must do so explicitly using specific language like “tariff” rather than relying on broad regulatory powers. The case consolidates Learning Resources (No. 25-5202) with V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. United States (No. 2025-1812) and follows a district court victory for the companies against the Trump administration’s use of IEEPA for tariff imposition. This represents the sole taxing power case currently on the Court’s docket and could have significant implications for executive authority in trade policy.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Corporate Strategy Behind Constitutional Challenges
What’s particularly revealing about this case is the business calculus behind the constitutional challenge. Educational toy companies aren’t typically at the forefront of trade policy battles, but their involvement signals how targeted tariffs can disproportionately impact specific industries. Companies facing sudden tariff impositions have limited options: absorb the costs and sacrifice margins, pass costs to consumers and risk market share, or challenge the legal foundation of the tariffs themselves. The latter approach, while legally complex, offers the potential for industry-wide relief rather than company-specific accommodations. This strategic litigation represents a sophisticated understanding that changing the rules can be more effective than playing within them.
The Real Economic Stakes Beyond Legal Theory
While the legal arguments focus on constitutional delegation principles, the economic implications are substantial. Tariffs function as both revenue generators and protectionist tools, creating winners and losers across the economy. Domestic manufacturers might benefit from reduced foreign competition, while import-dependent businesses face immediate cost increases. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 that first significantly delegated tariff authority to the executive emerged during economic crisis, highlighting how flexibility in trade policy has historically been valued during turbulent periods. Modern supply chains, however, are far more complex and integrated than in 1934, meaning sudden tariff changes can create cascading disruptions that outweigh any protectionist benefits.
The Business of Presidential Trade Authority
The evolution of presidential trade power represents a fascinating case study in institutional risk management. Congress has increasingly delegated tariff authority precisely because trade negotiations require flexibility and rapid response capabilities that legislative processes lack. As noted in historical analysis, the transition from Congress setting specific rates in the Tariff Act of 1789 to broad delegations in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 reflects practical governance needs. Businesses generally prefer predictability, but they also value the ability to leverage executive action for competitive advantage. The current challenge represents a tension between these competing business interests: some companies want stable, predictable trade policies set by Congress, while others benefit from the strategic flexibility that executive action provides.
Potential Market Consequences of Restricting Executive Authority
If the Supreme Court rules against the government, the immediate market consequences could be significant. Existing tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority might face legal challenges, creating uncertainty for businesses that have built supply chains and pricing models around current trade policies. More fundamentally, restricting presidential tariff authority would shift trade policy dynamics back toward Congress, potentially making trade negotiations less agile and more subject to political gridlock. International trade partners might become more hesitant to negotiate with U.S. representatives if agreements can be easily overturned by legislative inaction or opposition. The business community would need to adjust its lobbying strategies accordingly, focusing more on congressional relations than executive access.
Broader Implications for Regulatory Delegation
This case touches on a much larger question about how much authority Congress can delegate to executive agencies across all policy areas. The petitioners’ “tax exceptionalism” argument—that taxation powers require more explicit delegation than other regulatory powers—could establish a precedent affecting other domains where Congress has delegated significant authority. As discussed in related analysis, the nondelegation doctrine has been notoriously difficult to invoke successfully since J.W. Hampton & Co. v. United States established the “intelligible principle” standard in 1928. A ruling that creates special rules for tax delegation could open the door to similar arguments in environmental, financial, or healthcare regulation, fundamentally changing how administrative agencies operate.
Strategic Considerations for Affected Businesses
Companies operating in international markets should be preparing for multiple scenarios regardless of the Court’s decision. A ruling restricting presidential tariff authority would likely increase the importance of congressional trade committees and necessitate broader political engagement strategies. Conversely, a ruling upholding current authority maintains the status quo but doesn’t eliminate the underlying political risks of executive trade actions. Smart businesses are already diversifying their advocacy approaches, building relationships across both executive and legislative branches while developing more resilient supply chains that can adapt to sudden policy changes. The fundamental business lesson is that in today’s volatile trade environment, legal certainty is increasingly elusive, and operational flexibility provides the best protection against political risk.
