The U.S. Supreme Court delivered three major wins for free enterprise in its most recent term, curbing presidential tariff power, expanding executive control over bureaucratic agencies, and upholding longstanding foreclosure procedures. A new analysis published July 31, 2026 by the Mountain States Policy Center examines *Learning Resources v. Trump*, *Trump v. Slaughter*, and *Pung v. Isabella County* as decisions that together may lower regulatory burdens and provide the stability investors need for economic growth. The report argues that accurate constitutional interpretation naturally promotes market freedom because the Constitution itself is fundamentally a pro-freedom document.

In *Learning Resources v. Trump*, the justices rejected President Trump's claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gave him nearly unlimited authority to impose tariffs on foreign goods during emergencies he could declare almost at will. The President argued that IEEPA granted him power to "regulate . . . importation" and that tariffs were a traditional method of regulating imports. The court ruled against him on statutory grounds, holding that tariffs are taxes and that the phrase "regulate . . . importation" does not encompass the power to tax. In *Trump v. Slaughter*, the court decided that Congress cannot prevent the President from firing members of "independent" government agencies because the President serves as chief executive. The justices overruled the 1935 precedent *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which had upheld Congress's practice of limiting presidential removal power. However, in *Trump v. Cook*, the court did maintain firing limits for one agency: the Federal Reserve System. In *Pung v. Isabella County*, the court addressed a tax foreclosure sale where proceeds fell short of both the debt owed and fair market value. The delinquent taxpayers argued the county had to recover fair market value at the sale or forgive remaining debt, but the court upheld the county's procedure.

The report concludes that the *Slaughter* decision may discourage Congress from delegating excessive authority to "independent" bureaucratic agencies, which benefits free enterprise. According to the analysis, most current justices had no difficulty overruling *Humphrey's Executor* because the 1935 court's reasoning "was flawed almost to the point of being intellectually dishonest," reflecting many Supreme Court opinions from the 1930s and early 1940s. The report states that the *Pung* outcome "was bad for the Pungs but good for free enterprise" because it preserved a time-honored foreclosure process that provides certainty for real estate investors.

The analysis explains that the Constitution delegates both taxing power and commerce regulation to Congress, not to the President, though Congress may allow the President to determine details. It cannot, however, surrender wholesale a core constitutional power to another branch of government. The report notes that tariff opponents didn't raise this constitutional argument, possibly because the justices have recently been reluctant to challenge Congress for exceeding constitutional bounds despite inaccurate claims of a "conservative Supreme Court" that is actually centrist. Markets function best when rules remain simple and stable, the report argues. Foreclosure sales are unpleasant but necessary to clear debt, resolve title disputes, collect back taxes, and return property to the market. Had the Pungs won, foreclosure sales would have been complicated by disputes over fair market value. The report's author notes that the Supreme Court's constitutional role isn't to decide what helps free markets but to interpret the Constitution accurately—and because the Constitution is essentially a pro-freedom document, accurate interpretation often promotes market freedom, giving reason to celebrate these three decisions.