A legal writing commentator analyzes Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump, which held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president's tariff policy. The piece argues Roberts made the opinion readable by consistently using the president as the grammatical subject of sentences describing IEEPA's requirements and the administration's actions, rather than burying the narrative in abstractions like 'proclamations' or 'executive orders.'
The author contrasts this with a September 2025 Congressional Research Service report on the same law, which relies on dense, subject-less sentences and block quotes that make for a far less readable account of the same events. The underlying facts recounted include Trump declaring emergencies over drug trafficking and trade deficits and then repeatedly raising, lowering or removing tariffs under that authority.
The piece frames Roberts's writing choice as a broader lesson for lawyers: put actors, not concepts, in the subject position if you want to be read and understood.
The full dispatch is available from the source below.