President Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally raise tariffs, prompting legal challenges that culminated in the Supreme Court’s 6‑3 ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump. The Court held that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose, rescind, or adjust tariffs, classifying them as a taxing power. While the decision represents a legal victory for opponents of the tariff strategy, the economic effects of the tariffs remain in place. The ruling forces future trade measures to rely on congressional action rather than executive emergency powers.

The Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president authority to impose tariffs. Six justices agreed on this point but divided on the reasoning, with one side invoking...

Milton Friedman argued that free immigration clashes with a welfare state, but his stance was more nuanced: he viewed illegal immigration as beneficial because it limits immigrants' access to public benefits. The article notes that most U.S. immigrants are of...

The article revisits the classic small‑country tariff model, contrasting it with the large‑country framework that allows an importer to affect world prices. It explains how a sufficiently small tariff could improve a large importer’s terms of trade, creating an "optimal...