Dru Stevenson, Professor of Law

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 justic...