Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶141

Contrary to the dissent's charge, too, the principal opinion's application of the major questions doctrine today in no way amounts to a “magic words test.” Post, at 372. Of course, if IEEPA included terms like “tariff ” or “duty,” that would have suffced. But, to borrow a phrase from the dissent, “monetary exactions on foreign imports” would have worked just as well. Post, at 345. Same goes for “tax on imported goods.” Or any similarly clear term or phrase. But IEEPA includes no such language, just a broad term that could cover almost anything a government does. And requiring specific rather than general language is just how clear-statement rules work. See, e. g., Sossamon, 563 U. S., at 291.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.