Major news from the Supreme Court of the United States could have ripple effects far beyond tariffs. In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Court addressed Congress’s taxing authority—and in doing so, clarified a key constitutional principle that may impact ongoing challenges to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

At issue in the tariffs case was whether certain executive actions fell within Congress’s delegated taxing powers. In its majority opinion, the Court emphasized that the constitutional power to tax under Article I is distinct from the power to regulate. Taxes raise revenue. Regulations control conduct. The two authorities are not interchangeable.

That distinction could prove significant in lawsuits challenging NFA requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs)—particularly after Congress eliminated the $200 tax stamp for certain items in recent legislation. Plaintiffs argue that if the NFA’s taxation basis is removed, remaining regulatory requirements like registration and fingerprinting may lack constitutional grounding.

The Supreme Court also cited Sonzinsky v. United States, a key precedent upholding the NFA as a tax measure. By reaffirming that tariffs—and by extension similar levies—are exercises of the taxing power, the Court underscored the importance of constitutional “hooks” that justify federal authority.

While future litigation will determine how this reasoning applies to firearm regulations, the Court’s clear separation of taxing and regulatory powers is likely to play a central role in upcoming NFA challenges.