Lost in the extensive coverage of the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 opinion invalidating most of President Trump’s tariffs was the fact that there were two related cases before it^[1] and that it had entirely dismissed one of them. The lead case, in fact. 

That coverage gap is understandable. The only mention the Court makes of its decision to dismiss Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump in the text of its opinion is in the opinion’s very last sentence. And it relegates its explanation for dismissing that case to a bare footnote.

The Learning Resources case had been brought in federal district court. The second case, V.O.S. Selections v. U.S., was filed in the specialized Court of International Trade (CIT) and subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. In both cases, the plaintiffs successfully argued to the lower courts that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) didn’t give the President authority to impose tariffs. But the Supreme Court said only the CIT had jurisdiction to decide that issue. Luckily for importers and consumers, the Court got it backwards, thereby allowing it to get to the merits directly.

Why likely wrong?

Why was the Court probably wrong to dismiss the Learning Resources case? Let’s start with the Court’s central holding “that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” The federal district court where Learning Resources had brought its lawsuit relied on that very same conclusion to reject the government’s motion to move the case to the Court of International Trade. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1), the CIT has “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against the United States that arises out of any law providing for….tariffs…” But, the district court reasoned straightforwardly, IEEPA is not a law providing for tariffs and the CIT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to consider Learning Resource’s complaint.

The Supreme Court’s explanation for reaching the opposite conclusion was anything but straightforward. Its terse footnote adopts the Federal Circuit’s questionable reasoning:

We agree with the Federal Circuit that the V.O.S. Selections case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIT. The plaintiffs’ challenges “arise[] out of” modifications to the HTSUS. 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1). Where, as here, such modifications are made under an “Act[] affecting import treatment,” 19 U. S. C. §2483, they are “considered to be statutory provisions of law for all purposes,” §3004(c)(1)(C). Thus, the plaintiffs’ challenges “arise[] out of [a] law of the United States providing for. . . tariffs.” 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1). For the same reasons, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacked jurisdiction in the Learning Resources case.

The fundamental problem with this explanation starts with the text of 19 U. S. C. §2483. It reads: “The President shall from time to time, as appropriate, embody in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States the substance of the relevant provisions of this chapter, and of other Acts affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder…” (emphasis added). To be sure, lawful regulatory modifications to the HTSUS would be equivalent to laws providing for tariffs. But, if the “as appropriate” limitation in §2483 has any meaning in the context of the majority ruling, it means that changes to the HTSUS under IEEPA were not “appropriate,” they were unlawful. In other words, IEEPA is not an act “affecting import treatment,” so changes to the HTSUS under IEEPA aren’t either. And, if that’s so, the case wasn’t the CIT’s to decide. For victimized importers, though, winning the VOS Selections case was like picking the Community Chest card in Monopoly that reads: “Bank error in your favor, collect $200.”

Why good?

Last fall, when the Supreme Court agreed to hear both cases, it also ordered accelerated briefing. That was a clear signal that it shared both the government’s and Learning Resources’ desire to resolve the tariffs’ legality quickly and definitively. But the district court in Learning Resources had granted a preliminary injunction finding only that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. If the Court had dismissed the VOS Selections case rather than the Learning Resources case, it would not have definitively resolved the legality of the tariffs.

To be sure, the Court’s tariff opinion did not end the uncertainty hanging over markets stemming from the President’s continued desire to wield import tariffs as a political weapon. The same day the Court issued its ruling, the President announced his intention to tax importers with a new set of temporary worldwide tariffs by invoking yet another law – Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Like IEEPA, Section 122 had not previously been used to impose tariffs.^[2]

But the Court’s ruling did put an end to IEPPA tariffs. That’s not nothing. As the Court recounted, the President had used IEEPA to impose wildly fluctuating tariffs—ranging from 10% to 145%—which he changed weekly and even daily. And the Section 122-based tariffs he’s ordered are far more limited—both in time and scope—than the IEEPA tariffs. They are statutorily capped at 15% and may only remain in effect for 150 days absent Congressional authorization. Finally, even though temporary, the Section 122 tariffs may not survive. They have already been challenged by 20 states’ attorneys general and two governors.

It may take some time for importers who paid the unlawful tariffs to recover refunds. Consumers, who likely bore the brunt of the IEEPA tariffs, will not get relief. And it may also take some time before the President runs out of tariff options. But the Court’s definitive ruling, arguably stretching to reach the merits, may have sent a useful signal about its willingness to curb executive power excesses. 

---

[1] Learning Resources, a toy importer, had prevailed in the federal district court and, citing the urgency of its circumstances, asked the Supreme Court to review the case directly. The Supreme Court denied that request without explanation only three days later. Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump, 606 U.S. __, 145 S. Ct. 2811 (2025), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6039040956772252250&q=learning+resources+inc&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60. But the government—citing the same urgency—later filed its own petition for certiorari and request for expedited review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump. The Court then granted the government’s motion and, without acknowledging its reversal, also granted the Learning Resources motion it had previously denied, consolidating the two cases for review. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, 146 S. Ct. 73 (2025), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6827148393594619688&q=learning+resources+inc&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60.

[2] Ilya Somin, Trump’s New Tariffs Are Another Dangerous Presidential Power Grab, Cato Institute (Feb. 24, 2026), https://www.cato.org/commentary/trumps-new-tariffs-are-another-dangerous-presidential-power-grab. Somin and other have pointed out the reason section 122 has not been invoked by other presidents – the statute, predicated on addressing balance of payments problems that could arise under the “gold standard” – had become obsolete by the time it became law because the U.S. has long since abandoned the use of gold as a currency reserve. President Trump’s reliance on section 122, they argue, rests on the dubious premise that our nation’s forty year old trade deficits amount to a balance of payments emergency. Id. See also, Simon Lester, Guest Post: President Trump Cannot Legally Impose Tariffs Using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Int’l Economic law and Policy Blog (Jan. 21, 2026), https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2026/01/guest-post-president-trump-cannot-legally-impose-tariffs-using-section-122-of-the-trade-act-of-1974/

Harvey Reiter is an Energy and Telecommunications Attorney at Stinson LLP.