Learning Resources v. Trump
Learning Resources v. Trump, and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. is a consolidated case in the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court will determine the constitutionality of presidential imposition of tariffs, particularly import taxes levied in the second presidency of Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court will consider decisions made by both the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which both found that the tariffs placed by Trump under the IEEPA were illegal. BackgroundAs a presidential candidate, Donald Trump stated that he would aggressively pursue tariffs as an economic strategy.[1] Lower court historyOn April 22, 2025, Learning Resources and hand2mind, two family-owned educational toy manufacturers, sued Trump in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[2] In an interview with CBS News, Learning Resources' chief executive, Rick Woldenberg, argued that Trump's tariffs would negatively affect his business and the U.S. economy,[3] citing that their costs to tariffs had risen by a 44-fold increase.[2] A coalition of experts filed an amici curiae brief in support of the plaintiff, stating "The powers to tax, to regulate commerce, and to shape the nation's economic course must remain with Congress. They cannot drift silently into the hands of the President through inertia, inattention, or creative readings of statutes never meant to grant such authority. That conviction is not partisan. It is constitutional. And it strikes at the heart of this case."[4][5] The brief, co-authored by Michael W. McConnell and Joshua Claybourn, brought together "big-name constitutional law scholars across the political spectrum" according to Reason, and included legal scholars Steven Calabresi, Harold Koh, Richard Epstein, Michael W. McConnell, and Gerard Magliocca, and former government officials Michael Mukasey, George Allen, and Chuck Hagel.[4] The filing, dubbed the McConnell/Claybourn brief,[6] was cited by Vox as one of the plaintiffs' two significant advantages, noting that co-signer John Danforth is a mentor to Justice Clarence Thomas and gave Thomas his first job out of law school.[7] According to Adam Liptak of The New York Times, the amici brief was considered instrumental in the case's proceedings.[8] McConnell would later transition to serve as counsel to the plaintiffs in the companion tariff case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled on May 29, 2025, that Trump's tariffs were unlawful, but limited his order to the plaintiffs and delayed it until an appeal could be heard.[9] Trump appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by June 3, leading judge Contreras to extend the stay on his order while the case was litigated there.[2] U.S. Supreme CourtWhile the case progressed in the appeals court, Learning Resources filed for a motion to expedite directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the appeals court, along with a writ of certiorari on June 18, 2025.[10] The Supreme Court rejected the expedited request two days later without comment.[11] In July, solicitor general D. John Sauer argued that the justices "should not leapfrog" the proceedings in the appeals court.[12] In a related tariff case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, on an appeal from the United States Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit Appeals Court upheld the lower court's findings that the tariffs were illegal in an en banc, per curiam decision issued August 29.[13] Within a week, Trump had filed a writ of certiorari and a request for an expedited hearing schedule to the Supreme Court.[10] On September 9, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidating it with V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, on the expedited schedule that Trump had requested from V.O.S. Selections. Oral arguments were scheduled for the first week of November 2025.[14] References
Works cited
Further reading
External links
|
||||||||||||||||||||
