Trump loses the tariff case.

"The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every U.S. trading partner, a major setback for his administration’s second-term agenda. The court’s 6-3 decision has significant implications for the U.S. economy, consumers and the president’s trade policy. The Trump administration had said that a loss at the Supreme Court could force the government to unwind trade deals with other countries and potentially pay hefty refunds to importers...."

NYT link.

Here's the opinion, Learning Resources v. Trump. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh are the 3 dissenters. The Chief Justice writes the opinion of the Court for Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B. His opinion for Parts II–A–2 and III is joined by Gorsuch and Barrett, who also file concurring opinions. Kagan has a concurring opinion joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, and Jackson has a concurring opinion. 

So there is a lot of complicated reading to do.

ADDED: From the Opinion of the Court:

Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—“regulate” and “importation”—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.... 

We have long expressed “reluctan[ce] to read into ambiguous statutory text” extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers. In Biden v. Nebraska, for example, we declined to read authorization to “waive or modify” statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs as a delegation of power to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt. In West Virginia v. EPA, we declined to read authorization to determine the “best system of emission reduction” as a delegation of power to force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal. And in National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, we declined to read authorization to ensure “safe and healthful working conditions” as a delegation of power to impose a vaccine mandate on 84 million Americans. 

We have described several of these cases as “major questions” cases. In each, the Government claimed broad, expansive power on an uncertain statutory basis.... “[B]oth separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent” suggested Congress would not have delegated “highly consequential power” through ambiguous language.... 

It is... telling that in IEEPA’s “half century of existence,” no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs—let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope. Presidents have, by contrast, regularly invoked IEEPA for other purposes. At the same time, they have invoked other statutes—but never IEEPA—to impose tariffs, on products ranging from car tires to washing machines.... 

The President’s assertion here of broad “statutory power over the national economy” is “extravagant” by any measure. And as the Government admits—indeed, boasts—the economic and political consequences of the IEEPA tariffs are astonishing....

The Government’s and the principal dissent’s proposed foreign affairs exception fares no better....  The central thrust of the Government’s and the principal dissent’s proposed exceptions appears to be that ambiguous delegations in statutes addressing “the most major of major questions” should necessarily be construed broadly. But it simply does not follow from the fact that a statute deals with major problems that it should be read to delegate all major powers for which there may be a “colorable textual basis.” It is in precisely such cases that we should be alert to claims that sweeping delegations—particularly delegations of core congressional powers—“lurk[]” in “ambiguous statutory text.” 

There is no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine. Accordingly, the President must “point to clear congressional authorization” to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. He cannot....