The Federal Employee Survival Blog

Your go-to resource for navigating job uncertainty, protecting your rights, and staying ahead of federal workplace changes. Get the latest insights on policy shifts, legal updates, discipline defense, EEO protections, and career-saving strategies—so you’re always prepared, never blindsided.

📌 Stay informed. Stay protected. Stay in control.

Supreme Court Case Tests Presidential Power in Learning Resources v. Trump

executive authority federal employment ieepa separation of powers supreme court Nov 05, 2025

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Learning Resources v. Trump—a case that could reshape how far presidential authority extends in national emergencies. While it centers on tariffs, the underlying question runs much deeper: can a president use emergency powers to impose taxes without Congress?

At the heart of the dispute is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that lets presidents “regulate” imports and exports during declared national emergencies. President Trump invoked IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign goods, framing it as a response to an “economic emergency.” The Court is now being asked whether “regulate” also means “tax.”

Why the “Power of the Purse” Matters

The Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the authority to levy taxes and control spending. That’s known as the power of the purse, and it’s one of the most fundamental checks in our system of separated powers. If the Court sides with the former president, it could open the door for future administrations to impose tariffs—or similar economic measures—without explicit congressional approval.

For federal employees, this isn’t just an academic question. It determines where agency authority begins and ends. If emergency powers expand unchecked, agency professionals could find themselves executing sweeping policy changes with little legislative guidance or oversight.

A Test of the “Major Questions” Doctrine

The justices are likely to revisit the major questions doctrine, which says that when an agency or president claims broad new powers under an old statute, courts should be skeptical unless Congress clearly authorized it. This doctrine has already curtailed actions by multiple administrations—from climate regulation to student loan forgiveness. The question now is whether the Court will apply the same principle to a Republican president’s use of emergency authority.

Why Federal Employees Should Watch Closely

However the Court rules, Learning Resources v. Trump will set a precedent for how far political leadership can stretch statutory language before hitting a constitutional wall. For those inside government, it may shape the boundaries of your own agency’s discretion—and clarify whether “executive power” can override established checks from Congress.

In an era where agencies are often asked to implement ambitious policies under uncertain authority, this case is a reminder that the balance between action and accountability still defines public service.

Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BRIEFING

Your Trusted Guide in Uncertain Times

Stay informed, stay protected. The Federal Employee Briefing delivers expert insights on workforce policies, legal battles, RTO mandates, and union updates—so you’re never caught off guard. With job security, telework, and agency shifts constantly evolving, we provide clear, concise analysis on what’s happening, why it matters, and what you can do next.

📩 Get the latest updates straight to your inbox—because your career depends on it.

You're safe with me. I'll never spam you or sell your contact info.