We will hear argument this morning in case 241287, Learning Resources v. Trump, and the consolidated case.

General Sauer.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, on April 2nd, President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe. He further pronounced that the traffic of fentanyl and other

opioids into our country has created a public health crisis taking hundreds of thousands

of American lives. President Trump has declared that these emergencies are country-killing

and not sustainable, that they threaten the bedrock of our national and economic security,

and that fixing them will make America a strong, financially viable and respected country again.

Due to AIPA tariffs, President Trump has negotiated agreements worth trillions of dollars with major trading partners,

including most recently China.

Unwinding those agreements, he warns, would expose us to ruthless trade retaliation by far more aggressive countries and drive America from strength to failure with ruinous economic and national security consequences.

In dames and more against Regan, this Court held that Aipa's sweeping and unqualified language

grants the President's actions the strongest presumption of validity and the widest latitude

of judicial interpretation.

Yet plaintiffs argue that tariffs, Aipa's least blunt and most nimble tool, are virtually

the only tool that Congress did not grant the President to deal with

foreign emergencies.

That is wrong.

The phrase regulate importation plainly embraces tariffs, which are among the most traditional

and direct methods of regulating importation.

And plaintiffs concede that IEPA authorizes quotas and other tariff equivalents.

The major questions doctrine does not apply here.

Aipa confers major powers to address major problems on the president,

...