Court of International Trade strikes down IEEPA tariffs

On 28 May 2025 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade — Judges Gary S. Katzmann, Timothy M. Reif, and Jane A. Restani — granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States (Court No. 25-00066) and State of Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Court No. 25-00077, a suit brought by twelve states led by Oregon), decided in a single opinion, holding that IEEPA “does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders.” The worldwide and retaliatory orders “exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs”; the trafficking tariffs “fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”¹ The court vacated the operative executive orders and entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the reciprocal tariffs under Executive Order 14257 of 2 April 2025 and the trafficking tariffs under Executive Orders 14193 (Canada), 14194 (Mexico) and 14195 (China) of 1 February 2025.¹²³

1. The worldwide and retaliatory tariffs fell because they respond to trade deficits. The court held that they “address a balance-of-payments deficit,” which Congress committed to the limits of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and that, unbounded by any limit in duration or scope, they are “ultra vires and contrary to law.”¹ The court used the nondelegation and major questions doctrines, “even if not directly applied,” as tools of interpretation, citing West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), and concluded that “any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.”¹⁴ The construed text is “regulate … importation” at 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B).⁵

2. The court reviewed the orders as a claim that the President exceeded the authority Congress delegated. Presidential actions “are not subject to [the APA’s] requirements,” it noted, citing Franklin v. Massachusetts, but “claims that the President’s actions violated the statutory authority delegated to him … are reviewable.” The orders “will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined.” The court declined to confine relief to the plaintiffs: “There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,” resting that on the Constitution’s requirement that duties be “uniform throughout the United States.”¹ Without a stay, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would stop collecting these duties at the port of entry; refunds for duties already paid proceed under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (protests, with the 180-day window of § 1514(c)(3)), § 1520 (refunds and errors) and § 1505(c) (interest on refunds, accruing from date of deposit).⁶

3. The government’s appeal lies to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over CIT decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5); the government has 60 days to file notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), and a stay pending appeal may be sought in the CIT under its own Rule 62 and in the Federal Circuit under FRAP 8(a)(2), under the Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009), four-factor test.⁷⁸⁹ The government appealed both cases the same day and moved to stay the injunction pending appeal.¹⁰

Corrections

• 2026-09-24: The post named the cases V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and Oregon v. Trump, consolidated. The opinion it reports is captioned V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States and State of Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and decides both cases in one opinion; the “v. Trump” forms are the captions used elsewhere, including by the Federal Circuit on appeal. Effect 2 said the court vacated the orders under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); the court instead noted that presidential actions are not subject to the APA and reviewed the orders as exceeding delegated authority. Effect 1 said the panel “applied” the major questions doctrine and that an unbounded reading “would raise” constitutional concerns; the court used the doctrines as interpretive tools “even if not directly applied” and held such a reading “is unconstitutional.” Effect 1 now also reports the Section 122 ground on which the worldwide and retaliatory tariffs fell.¹ Effect 3 placed a stay under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62; in the CIT it is the court’s own Rule 62.⁸