Yesterday's Supreme Court decision rejecting President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs is styled Learning Resources v. Trump. But why?

The tariff case was actually two cases. Learning Resources, which had been filed in a federal district court, and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, which was filed in the Court of International Trade and then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One question before the Court was which of these litigation pathways was the right one.

Here is what the Court said on that point in a footnote:

We agree with the Federal Circuit that the V.O.S. Selections case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIT. The plaintiffs' challenges "arise[] out of " modifications to the HTSUS. 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1). Where, as here, such modifications are made under an "Act[] affecting import treatment," 19 U. S. C. §2483, they are "considered to be statutory provisions of law for all purposes," §3004(c)(1)(C). Thus, the plaintiffs' challenges "arise[] out of [a] law of the United States providing for . . . tariffs." 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1). For the same reasons, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacked jurisdiction in the Learning Resources case.

Based upon this, it seems to me the decision should be captioned Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, not Learning Resources. After all, if the district court lacked jurisdiction in Learning Resources, that case should have been dismissed and the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to review that case on the merits. It did, however, have jurisdiction to reach the merits in V.O.S. Selections, so that is the case on which the Court actually ruled. But that is not what the Court did.