V.O.S. Selections sues at the Court of International Trade to block IEEPA tariffs

On 14 April 2025 five owner-operated US businesses — V.O.S. Selections, Inc. (a New York wine and spirits importer); Plastic Services and Products LLC, d/b/a Genova Pipe (Utah plumbing and irrigation products); MicroKits LLC (Virginia educational electronics kits); FishUSA Inc. (Pennsylvania sportfishing tackle); and Terry Precision Cycling LLC (Vermont women’s cycling apparel) — filed V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00066, in the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenging Executive Orders 14193 (1 February 2025; Canada), 14194 (1 February 2025; Mexico), 14195 (1 February 2025; China) and 14257 (2 April 2025; reciprocal tariffs).¹ Named defendants include President Donald J. Trump, the United States, Pete R. Flores (Acting CBP Commissioner), Jamieson Greer (United States Trade Representative), Howard Lutnick (Secretary of Commerce) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.² Plaintiffs are represented by the Liberty Justice Center, with Professor Ilya Somin (Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University) serving as co-counsel.³

1. Subject-matter jurisdiction in tariff disputes vests exclusively in the U.S. Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(B) over civil actions arising out of any law of the United States providing for “tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue.”⁴ Decisions of the CIT are appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).⁵

2. The complaint pleads four counts: (I)-(II) the orders are ultra vires because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B), authorises the President to “investigate, … regulate … importation … of … any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest” but does not name “tariff,” “duty,” or “tax”; (III) if IEEPA is read to authorise tariffs, it violates the nondelegation doctrine under Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989); and (IV) the implementing agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).¹⁶⁷

3. The challenged orders each invoke the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.), § 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2483) and 3 U.S.C. § 301 in addition to IEEPA.⁸⁹ The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the tariffs are unlawful and a permanent injunction barring their enforcement.¹