Supreme Court grants certiorari on IEEPA tariffs; oral argument set for 5 November

On 9 September 2025 the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., No. 25-250 — petition filed 4 September 2025 from the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision of 29 August 2025 — and granted certiorari before judgment in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (the petitioner having sought direct review from the D.C. Circuit before final judgment under Supreme Court Rule 11). The Court consolidated the two cases and set oral argument for 5 November 2025, allotting one hour of argument total across the consolidated cases.¹² The cert grant comes from the Federal Circuit’s 7-4 en banc ruling in No. 25-1812 holding that 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B) does not authorise the reciprocal tariffs imposed under EO 14257 — Judge Lourie wrote the majority; Judges Taranto, Moore, Prost and Chen dissented.³⁴ Certiorari jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (review of court of appeals decisions); the Learning Resources posture rests on Supreme Court Rule 11 (certiorari before judgment).⁵⁶

1. The Court’s order set a compressed briefing schedule under Supreme Court Rule 25: opening merits briefs from the government as petitioner in No. 25-250 were due 19 September 2025 (compressed from the Rule 25.1 default of 45 days); respondent’s brief due 35 days thereafter under Rule 25.2; reply brief no later than one week before oral argument under Rule 25.3.⁷ The Federal Circuit’s stay of mandate continues until 14 October 2025 under FRAP 41(d) and the four-factor framework of Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); IEEPA tariff collections continue under that stay.⁸⁹

2. The petition’s Questions Presented frame the case under three statutory-interpretation grounds: (i) whether IEEPA’s “regulate … importation” verb at 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B) encompasses tariffs; (ii) the nondelegation doctrine under Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989); and (iii) the major-questions doctrine articulated in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), and reinforced after the demise of Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).^10111213

3. An affirmance of the Federal Circuit en banc disposition would leave the declaratory ruling in place while the vacated universal injunction (vacated in light of Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025)) means importer refund procedures would proceed plaintiff-by-plaintiff under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (protests against decisions of the Customs Service) and 19 U.S.C. § 1520 (refunds and errors), subject to the scope of any prospective equitable relief the Supreme Court ultimately grants.¹⁴¹⁵