The Major Questions Doctrine and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

By

In my Administrative Law and Statutory Interpretation classes, we talk about how broadly or narrowly the courts should construe ambiguous phrases or passing references when Congress delegates some authority, or entrusts some responsibility, to the Executive Branch. Last Friday, the Supreme Court revisited this in the landmark case Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump (2026).

This isn't just about the $175 billion in tariffs or the trade deficit; it’s about how a single word in a 1977 statute became the front line for the modern Major Questions Doctrine (MQD).

The Statutory "Sleight of Hand" The administration’s entire legal argument rested on two words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): "regulate" and "importation". They argued that because the President can "regulate importation" during a national emergency, he can naturally impose a tariff.

But as I discuss in the video, Chief Justice Roberts—and five other justices—weren't buying it. The Court noted that the U.S. Code is filled with statutes where the Executive "regulates" things, but the power to regulate has never been a back door to the power to tax. In fact, reading the statute that way would make IEEPA partly unconstitutional, as it would allow the President to tax exports—something the Constitution explicitly forbids.

The Splintered Bench: Six Opinions, One Result While the 6-3 result was clear, the reasoning was a masterclass in modern judicial philosophy. If you’re preparing for an exam, pay close attention to the six separate writings:

  • The Plurality (Roberts, Gorsuch, Barrett): Applied the Major Questions Doctrine with full force. They argued that if Congress meant to delegate the "transformative" power to levy unbounded tariffs, it wouldn't have hidden that power in a general word like "regulate".

  • The Liberal Concurrence (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson): They reached the same result but rejected the MQD framework entirely. For them, "ordinary" statutory interpretation—looking at text and context—was enough to see that "regulate" does not mean "tax".

  • The Jackson Concurrence: Justice Jackson wrote separately to emphasize the legislative history of IEEPA, arguing that Congress intended it only for freezing foreign assets, not raising revenue.

  • The Gorsuch & Barrett Concurrences: These two sparred over the theory of the MQD—Gorsuch defending it as a vital check on the "administrative state," and Barrett questioning if it’s a substantive canon or just a tool of linguistic context.

  • The Dissents (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito): Justice Kavanaugh’s 63-page dissent is the most comprehensive defense of executive trade power, arguing for a "foreign-affairs exception" to the MQD.

Why This Matters for Your Exams This case isn't just about trade; it’s the new high-water mark for the MQD. It proves that even "national security" and "emergencies" do not provide a safe harbor for the Executive if the underlying statutory language is vague.

Watch my full analysis of the case below:

Professor Stevenson is the Vinson and Elkins Research Professor and Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law Houston. Faculty bio: https://www.stcl.edu/profile/dru-stevenson/ 

Popular posts from this blog

Careful With Those Lawyer Jokes....

By
Image
I kind of enjoy lawyer jokes, but the media tried to make it sound like this was a case of egregious overlawyering. Notice at the end of the article that these guys complain they've been standing outside Long Island courthouses mocking lawyers " for years " without being arrested: "The pair said that for years they have stood outside courthouses on Long Island and mocked lawyers." Duh. You didn't expect one of those evil, assertive lawyers to get sick of it and complain at some point? As a practitioner, I didn't enjoy standing in line outside the courthouse in the freezing New England weather any more than the rest of the people - actually probably less, because most people appearing on charges seemed to bring friends and family with them to keep them company. These protestors really must not have enough to do! Get a job or something! If somebody finally decided he'd had enough, how was he supposed to know these guys were there that day fo...
Read more

Special-Interest Law Schools

By
I mentioned this article earlier in passing. The link in the title leads to the relatively even-handed treatment of Jerry Falwell's new Christian law school in Legal Affairs. (The first class of students there must have completed their first set of final exams by now). I would not be interested in teaching there myself, and worry about their bar passage rate, etc., but most of the criticisms in the media have been overblown. I like special interest law schools. They form a nice complement to the rest of our institutions, the 200 or so law schools that collectively graduate nearly 40,000 new but mostly generic practitioners every year. It enriches our legal system to have a subset of lawyers whose skills are devoted to and oriented around a particular social cause, instead of whatever case walks in the door and pays the bills. (My stint as a legal aid lawyer left me biased, though). It enriches social movements and NGO's to have lawyers who do more than take occasional pro bo...
Read more

The Complete Administrative Law Lecture Series (142 Videos) by Professor Dru Stevenson

By
Image
  🏛️ New: The Complete Administrative Law Lecture Series is Now Public I am pleased to announce the public availability of the complete Administrative Law lecture series for the Fall 2025 semester. This series includes 46 new videos posted in the last seven months, covering the core principles of the administrative state and essential topics for the bar exam and legal practice. The videos cover the full spectrum of agency power, including rulemaking, adjudication, and the critical role of judicial review. As a Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law Houston (STCL), this is the definitive, up-to-date guide for current legal analysis. Why This Content is Essential Now (H2) The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have fundamentally reshaped the landscape of Administrative Law, making new, up-to-date analysis essential for students and practitioners alike. This series includes new videos focused on: ⚖️ Statutory Interpretation and Deference (H3) New analysis on the Chevron doct...
Read more