NOT RETROACTIVE: Supreme Court Rules on Tariff.

The "major questions" doctrine is a legal principle holding that the executive branch must have clear, explicit authorization from Congress to take actions of "vast economic and political significance". Absent such clear guidance, the action is presumed invalid. 

That's the prediction according to G-101 SPM AI algorithm 1/ on the consolidated case of Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., which tests the limits of presidential emergency powers to impose tariffs. The core issue is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives the president the authority to impose such tariffs, which is a question of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. 

The Court will rule that the President did not have the authority to impose

the tariffs, but that the decision should apply prospectively 

to avoid the "mess" and massive administrative

complexity of refunding the approximately

$88-89 billion already collected.

This would allow the past actions to stand while preventing future presidents from doing the same.

The court will rules against Trump, it will nullify a major tool in the president's trade agenda. He has used the law under question, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs in an estimated 29 percent of all U.S. imports. During oral argument on November 5, 2025, justices appeared skeptical about Trump's legal authority.

WHAT THE CASE IS ALL ABOUT:

The "major questions" doctrine is a legal principle holding that the executive branch must have clear, explicit authorization from Congress to take actions of "vast economic and political significance". Absent such clear guidance, the action is presumed invalid. 

Application in the IEEPA Tariffs Case:

In the cases the doctrine is a central point of contention, with different sides arguing over its applicability to the President's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs.

Arguments for applying the doctrine (Challengers):

• Vast Economic Impact: The tariffs have generated approximately $88-89 billion in revenue and affect billions more, an impact that the challengers argue clearly meets the "vast economic and political significance" threshold, thus triggering the doctrine.

• Congressional Prerogative: The U.S. Constitution explicitly vests the power to impose tariffs and raise revenue in Congress (Article I). The challengers argue that allowing the President to bypass this fundamental separation of powers without clear language would make legislation "nothing more than the will of the current President".

• Lack of Explicit Language: Opponents of the tariffs point out that while IEEPA uses general terms like "regulate importation," it does not explicitly mention "tariffs" or "duties," a term used in other specific trade statutes. This ambiguity suggests Congress did not intend to delegate its core tariff authority through this general emergency law.

• Historical Precedent: The challengers note that until this case, the phrase "regulate...importation" in IEEPA had never been interpreted to grant the president broad tariff-imposing power, a point noted by Chief Justice John Roberts during oral arguments. 

Arguments against applying the doctrine (Government):

• Emergency Powers Exception: The Trump administration argued that the IEEPA is fundamentally an emergency statute designed to confer major powers to address major crises, so the "major questions" doctrine should not apply.

• Foreign Policy Context: Some justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, have previously indicated that the "major questions" doctrine has never been applied in a national security or foreign policy context, where the President traditionally has substantial authority and flexibility.

• Statutory Tools: The government's position is that the statute provides a "suite of tools" for the President to respond to emergencies, and that striking down the use of tariffs would remove a less extreme tool while potentially leaving more extreme actions (like a trade embargo) in place. 

The Supreme Court's decision will likely depend on whether a majority of Justices agree that the IEEPA tariffs constitute an action of "vast economic and political significance" requiring explicit congressional authorization and whether that clear language exists within the statute. 

At stake in the Supreme Court:

The United States has collected approximately $88 to $89 billion in tariff revenues through the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that are at stake in the Supreme Court case. 

The total amount of money could be much higher, potentially reaching over $100 billion, depending on how long the tariffs remain in effect during the legal process. If the Supreme Court rules against the government, the U.S. could be forced to refund this vast sum to the importers who paid the tariffs, a process that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned could force the return of up to $750 billion or more if the ruling is delayed. 

Future projections estimate the IEEPA tariffs could bring in $1.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade, all of which is also at stake depending on the Court's ultimate decision on the scope of presidential power.

Historical use of IEEPA for tariffs:

Before the current legal challenge, no U.S. president had ever used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs on imported goods. Its use for the sweeping tariffs in question represents a novel interpretation of the 1977 law. 

Intended and Historical Use

• Sanctions and Asset Freezes: IEEPA was designed primarily to give the president the authority to regulate or block economic transactions, such as freezing assets or imposing sanctions, during a declared national emergency (e.g., in response to terrorism, cyberattacks, or hostile state actions).

• Specific National Security Threats: Presidents have invoked IEEPA numerous times (over 80 times since 1977) to address specific foreign policy or national security crises, such as President George W. Bush impeding the financial network of terrorist organizations after 9/11 or President Barack Obama sanctioning foreign hackers.

• No Explicit Mention of Tariffs: The statute itself authorizes the president to "regulate" or "prohibit" imports but does not explicitly mention "tariffs" or "duties," a term used in other specific trade statutes. This omission is a central part of the legal challenge. 

The Precursor Statute and the Nixon Surcharge

The only historical precedent for a president imposing a broad import tax under similar emergency authority relates to IEEPA's precursor, the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917. 

• President Nixon's Action (1971): In 1971, facing a balance-of-payments crisis, President Richard Nixon used TWEA (which at the time granted broader powers during both wartime and peacetime emergencies) to impose a temporary 10% import surcharge on all dutiable articles.

• Congressional Intent of IEEPA: When Congress passed IEEPA in 1977, it was specifically intended to limit these broad presidential emergency economic powers granted by TWEA to times of actual war. The new IEEPA was meant to provide a more constrained set of authorities for peacetime national emergencies, a point which the challengers in the Supreme Court case argue prohibits its use for general tariffs. 

The Trump Administration's Novel Interpretation

The Trump administration's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs was a significant departure from this history. The administration invoked the law to impose tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and eventually almost all U.S. trading partners, citing national emergencies related to trade deficits, illicit drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. Lower courts, in ruling against the administration, found that the tariffs "exceed any authority granted" by the IEEPA and that its use in this manner was unprecedented.

OVERVIEW

Beyond the highly contested use for imposing broad tariffs, presidents typically use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for a variety of economic statecraft measures during declared national emergencies, primarily freezing assets and imposing targeted sanctions. 

Common and Historical Uses

• Asset Freezes: This allows the president to block assets of foreign countries, entities, or individuals posing a threat to U.S. national security or foreign policy, as seen after the 9/11 attacks when President George W. Bush froze assets to disrupt terrorist financing.

• Targeted Sanctions: Presidents have used IEEPA to restrict international transactions with specific nations or groups. Examples include the Trump administration's actions against Venezuela's state-owned oil company and repeated sanctions against Iran. President Barack Obama also authorized sanctions against foreign-based hackers targeting the U.S. using IEEPA in 2015. Additionally, the Trump administration used IEEPA to sanction International Criminal Court officials in 2020, a decision later reversed by President Biden.

• Regulating Imports (Specific): IEEPA permits the president to "regulate" or "prohibit" imports, historically interpreted as blocking specific goods from sanctioned entities or nations, not broad tariffs. 

Potential Future Uses (Depending on Court Ruling)

If the Supreme Court upholds the broad use of IEEPA for tariffs, it could significantly expand presidential authority. This could lead to:

• Routine "Reciprocal Tariffs": Presidents might impose tariffs on trading partners by declaring a threat based on factors like trade deficits, bypassing specific investigations or congressional approval.

• Expanded Use of Trade as a Foreign Policy Tool: The executive branch could use tariffs more readily and unilaterally in foreign policy and economic negotiations.

• Broader Economic Intervention: The power to "regulate" importation could be interpreted more expansively, potentially allowing economic interventions beyond traditional sanctions and asset freezes. 

Conversely, a ruling against the administration would likely reinforce the historical view of IEEPA as a tool for targeted sanctions and asset control during crises, rather than a broad tariff authority.

According to G-101 SPM AI algorithm, the Supreme Court will issue a narrow ruling that addresses the immediate case differently from future applications, or that determines the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs in general, thereby reaffirming Congress's exclusive right to impose them. 

The Court will rule:

• Invalidating Tariffs Prospectively, but Not Retrospectively: The Court could rule that the President did not have the authority to impose the tariffs, but that the decision should apply prospectively (going forward) to avoid the "mess" and massive administrative complexity of refunding the approximately $88-89 billion already collected. This would allow the past actions to stand while preventing future presidents from doing the same.

• Applying the "Major Questions" Doctrine: A central argument is that imposing tariffs with "vast economic and political significance" requires explicit, clear authorization from Congress, which is absent in IEEPA's language. The Court could use this doctrine to say that any future use of IEEPA for general tariffs is invalid, even if it handles the past case with a prospective-only ruling.

• A Textualist Interpretation: The Court could rule simply on the text of IEEPA, finding that the word "regulate importation" does not encompass the power to "tax" or impose "duties" (tariffs). This would be a clear legal interpretation that permanently bars the use of IEEPA for tariffs, as that power belongs to Congress under Article I of the Constitution.

• Distinguishing the Specific Tariffs: The Court might differentiate between the broad "worldwide" tariffs related to trade deficits and other more targeted tariffs, such as those related to fentanyl trafficking. They could strike down the broad tariffs as exceeding authority while potentially leaving the door open for highly specific, national security-related import regulations, though likely not revenue-generating tariffs. 

In essence, the Court's ruling is expected to be a significant limitation on presidential emergency powers, hold the past revenue as a one-off issue . Moreover, the Court is likely to rule against the broad use of IEEPA for tariffs, reinforcing the principle that Congress holds the power to tax and impose duties.

__________

1/ The G101 SPM AI algorithm is a proprietary predictive model, part of the "AI G101 SPM model" configuration offered by Christopher Netelkos and Northridge Corporation. 

Its stated purpose is to:

• Mimic human cognitive functions, such as perception, prediction, problem-solving, and optimization.

• Transform unstructured data into "smart" data.

• Calculate future investment values, specifically related to the S&P (SPX) index. 

According to claims made by its proponents, since March 2023, the model achieved an 85% accuracy rating for calculating these future investment values.

The G101 SPM AI algorithm  mimics human cognitive functions for financial prediction by processing and analyzing vast amounts of data to find patterns, much like a human analyst, but on a massive scale and at high speed. This process involves several key capabilities that resemble how humans think and make decisions: 

Mimicking human cognitive functions

• Perception: AI uses natural language processing (NLP) to "read" and understand massive amounts of text and data from sources like news articles, social media posts, and company reports. This is similar to how a human analyst perceives and synthesizes information from various sources.

• Pattern recognition: Through machine learning and neural networks, AI identifies subtle, complex patterns in data that a human might miss. For example, it might find correlations between seemingly unrelated factors like economic indicators, news sentiment, and stock prices.

• Prediction and forecasting: Based on the patterns it identifies, AI develops predictive analytics models to forecast market trends and outcomes. It can run countless "what-if" scenarios, adjusting its forecast in real-time as new information becomes available, which goes far beyond what a human can do manually.

• Problem-solving: AI can be used to optimize financial decisions and solve complex problems like fraud detection. It learns from past data to identify suspicious or anomalous activity, much like a human investigator develops an instinct for unusual behavior.