Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶410
As Judge Taranto persuasively summarized, this case bears none of the hallmarks of past major questions cases where the Court found a lack of clear congressional authorization for the Government's asserted major power. IEEPA's “facial breadth in an emergency context makes the straightforward application of the statute's words hardly unheralded, and if a more specific herald is needed, it is present in the [Nixon] 1971 proclamation, Yoshida CCPA, and subsequent congressional adoption of the relevant language in 1977.” 149 F. 4th 1312, 1376 (CA Fed. 2025) (dissenting opinion) (citations omitted). IEEPA seeks “to provide fexibility in the tools available to the President to address the unusual and extraordinary threats specified in a declared national emergency. This is not an `ancillary,' `little used backwater' provision, or a delegation outside the recipient's wheelhouse.” Ibid.…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.