In a consolidated decision involving Learning Resources, Inc. and V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the Court addressed whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.
President Trump had invoked IEEPA to:
Impose 25% tariffs on most imports from Canada and Mexico
Impose 10–20% tariffs on Chinese imports
Impose a minimum 10% “reciprocal tariff” on imports from virtually all trading partners
Increase certain tariffs to as high as 145%
The Administration argued that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate … importation” encompassed the authority to impose tariffs during a declared national emergency.
The Holding
The Court held:
IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
Key legal conclusions:
Tariffs are a core Article I taxing power, reserved to Congress.
The term “regulate” does not implicitly include taxation.
Congress must clearly authorize “major questions” involving vast economic and political significance.
IEEPA contains no reference to “tariffs” or “duties,” unlike other trade statutes.
No prior President had used IEEPA to impose tariffs in its nearly 50-year history.
The Court emphasized that emergency statutes do not create an exception to constitutional structure and that foreign affairs context does not dilute Congress’s exclusive taxing authority.
Legal Significance
This decision is notable for:
Reinforcing the major questions doctrine
Limiting executive authority under emergency economic powers
Reasserting Congress’s exclusive control over tariff policy
Rejecting expansive readings of statutory language to justify sweeping economic actions
The ruling does not prevent tariffs altogether; it requires that they be imposed pursuant to statutes that explicitly authorize duties (e.g., Trade Expansion Act §232, Trade Act §301), subject to procedural and substantive limits.
Potential Impact on IHMM Certificants
IHMM credential holders—particularly CHMMs, CHMPs, CDGPs, and CSHMs—may experience several downstream effects:
1. Supply Chain Stability
Hazardous materials professionals involved in:
Dangerous goods shipping
Chemical import/export compliance
Raw material sourcing
Battery and electronics components transport
may see reduced volatility in tariff-driven cost structures. The ruling curtails unilateral executive tariff swings based on emergency declarations.
2. Regulatory Predictability
Compliance professionals benefit from:
Greater predictability in import classification and duty assessments
Reduced risk of sudden emergency-based import surcharges
More structured trade actions tied to established statutory procedures
This supports long-range compliance planning and cost forecasting.
3. Federal-State Litigation Exposure
The case involved challenges by both private businesses and multiple states. For IHMM certificants advising public entities, this reinforces:
The continued viability of federal trade preemption
The importance of jurisdictional clarity (CIT exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes)
4. Strategic Trade Compliance Programs
Organizations employing IHMM credential holders may:
Reassess reliance on emergency-based tariff contingencies
Shift focus to statutory trade remedies (Section 232, 301, 201 safeguards)
Increase engagement in notice-and-comment processes under trade statutes
5. Environmental & Hazardous Materials Sectors
Tariffs frequently affect:
Critical minerals
Lithium batteries
Chemical feedstocks
Fertilizer and agricultural inputs
Waste export streams
The decision may moderate abrupt cost spikes affecting regulated materials supply chains.
Broader Governance Implications
For credential holders who operate at the intersection of regulatory compliance and international trade, this decision:
Strengthens constitutional checks and balances in economic regulation
Limits executive reliance on broad emergency powers
Reinforces the need for congressional trade action for durable policy shifts
It also signals continued judicial willingness to police statutory overreach in areas with significant economic consequences.
Bottom Line
From a legal and compliance perspective:
Executive tariff authority is constrained.
Congress remains the primary actor in trade taxation policy.
Emergency powers cannot be used to bypass clear statutory limits.
For IHMM certificants advising on hazardous materials transportation, global sourcing, environmental compliance, or trade risk management, the decision enhances regulatory predictability and reinforces structured, statute-based trade governance.
| IHMM Credential | Where the Decision Touches Day-to-Day Work | Likely Practical Effects | What Certificants Should Watch / Do |
|—|—|—|
| CHMM (Hazardous Materials Management) | Compliance programs that rely on predictable sourcing of regulated chemicals, hazmat packaging/components, EHS budgeting tied to imported inputs; enterprise risk management around supply disruptions | Reduced volatility from rapid emergency-based tariff swings; fewer “overnight” cost and supplier changes driven solely by unilateral tariff actions; trade constraints may shift back to more procedural, statute-based tools | Track trade actions under other statutes (e.g., Section 232/301-type authorities) rather than IEEPA; tighten internal controls on supplier change management and material substitution reviews; update risk registers to reflect lower IEEPA-tariff shock but continuing trade-law exposure |
| CDGP (Dangerous Goods Professional) | International dangerous goods shipping lanes, carrier contracts, route planning, packaging procurement, HazMat documentation workflows affected by import costs/availability | Potential stabilization of shipping cost inputs and packaging/component availability when tariffs are less subject to emergency toggling; fewer last-minute changes to landed cost that cascade into shipment timing and mode choices | Reinforce contingency planning around non-IEEPA trade restrictions (sanctions, embargoes, licensing) that remain fully viable; keep close coordination with procurement and brokers on classification/HTS impacts from any new, properly-authorized tariffs |
| CHMP (Hazardous Materials Practitioner) | Operational compliance in facilities handling imported regulated materials; purchasing specs for containers/labels/PPE; inventory planning for hazmat inputs | Lower likelihood of sudden tariff-driven substitutions that can increase operational nonconformance risk; more time for review because lawful tariff mechanisms typically have investigations/findings/process steps | Implement/refresh “material substitution” review triggers (SDS, compatibility, storage segregation, training impacts) when procurement changes suppliers; maintain readiness for trade actions via established processes that may still raise costs but with more lead time |
| CSHM (Safety & Health Manager) | Workforce stability and safety programs affected by supply chain disruption (PPE availability, equipment parts, chemical inputs); contractor management and budgeting in safety-critical operations | More predictable supply costs can improve procurement planning for PPE and safety equipment; fewer emergency-driven pricing shocks that force deferred maintenance or substitution that increases safety risk | Keep an eye on secondary effects: if tariffs shift to other legal authorities, timeline may be slower but still consequential; document procurement decision-making to show “reasonable diligence” when substitutions occur |
Cross-Cutting Takeaways (All Credentials)
The Court’s holding narrows IEEPA as a tariff tool; it does not eliminate tariff risk—tariffs may still arise under other explicit trade statutes with defined procedures and limits.
Expect trade policy moves to become more process-bound (investigations, findings, consultations), which typically creates more lead time for compliance planning.
Compliance programs should shift from “IEEPA emergency tariff whiplash” planning to broader trade remedy + sanctions + export controls monitoring.
Leave A Comment