Supreme Court

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson, denied the government's application to remove Cook while her suit proceeds, holding that the Federal Reserve Act's for-cause protection is constitutional and that a governor must receive notice and some opportunity to respond before removal, which Cook had not. The Court said eliminating that protection was for Congress, even as it had allowed at-will removal at most other independent agencies.

In Learning Resources v. Trump the Court held 6 to 3 that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, ending the 35 percent fentanyl tariff on non-USMCA goods and the 10 percent energy rate. The relief for Canada was limited: about 90 percent of its exports were already exempt, the Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos and lumber were untouched, and Trump replaced the lost tariffs with a Section 122 global surcharge from February 24 that exempted CUSMA-compliant goods.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court in Learning Resources v. Trump: the taxing power belongs to Congress, and when Congress has delegated tariff authority it has done so explicitly and with limits, so IEEPA's words regulate and importation cannot carry a delegation of unbounded tariff power. The Federal Circuit was affirmed and the D.C. district-court case was sent back to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. By then CBP had collected roughly $166 billion in IEEPA duties from about 330,000 importers on 53 million entries, all of it now potentially refundable.

After granting certiorari on September 9 and expediting the cases, the Court heard nearly three hours of argument in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that regulating importation plainly embraces tariffs; Neal Katyal for the businesses and Oregon's Benjamin Gutman for the states argued that IEEPA never mentions tariffs, duties or taxes. Justices across the spectrum pressed the government to point to statutory text authorising tariffs.