Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

South Florida

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued a landmark decision on May 28, 2025, in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States,<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> concluding that tariffs imposed by the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) exceeded the President’s statutory authority. The court vacated the challenged tariff orders and permanently enjoined their operation nationwide.&nbsp; However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit less than twenty-four hours later temporarily stayed the lower court’s order, pending a decision on a more permanent stay until all appeals conclude. Accordingly, the President’s tariffs are presently preserved, as the lower court’s decision has been stayed. A second decision by the D.C. District Court, a different federal court, also held the President’s IEEPA tariffs are beyond the scope of the statute and imposed a more limited injunction for two parties.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>

core/paragraph

These rulings do not affect other tariff measures taken by the Trump Administration, such as section 232 duties against steel and aluminum, and automobiles.

core/heading

Since January 2025, the President has declared several national emergencies and imposed a range of tariffs on imports from its trading partners. These included:

Worldwide and retaliatory tariffs consisting of a rate of 10 percent on all imports from all U.S. trading partners, with higher rates for certain countries, as a response to persistent U.S. trade deficits and alleged unfair trade practices.

core/list-item

Country-specific tariffs consisting of a 25 percent duty on Canadian and Mexican products (10 percent on Canadian oil and potash) and a 20 percent duty on Chinese products. These were implemented to address declared threats “to the safety and security of Americans, including the public health crisis of deaths due to the use of fentanyl and other illicit drugs” from international cartels, drug trafficking, and related criminal activity. 

core/list

Multiple states and businesses challenged these tariffs, arguing that the President had exceeded his authority granted by IEEPA and that the actions violated important constitutional principles.

The CIT held that IEEPA does not grant the President unlimited tariff authority. While the statute allows the President to “regulate . . . importation” in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” following a declared national emergency, the court held that this language does not authorize the imposition of unbounded tariffs. The court emphasized that any delegation of tariff authority to the President must be clearly limited and guided by an “intelligible principle” to avoid violating the separation of powers. The court also explained that the current tariffs are distinguishable from prior, more limited uses of emergency powers, noting that the challenged tariffs lacked meaningful limitations in scope or duration, effectively entailing unlimited Presidential authority.

The court held that the worldwide and retaliatory tariffs were unbounded by any limitation in duration or scope and, accordingly, ultra vires and contrary to law.

It also held that the country-specific tariffs failed to comply with IEEPA because the statute requires that emergency powers be exercised only to “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat” and there is no direct connection between the tariffs and the stated threat. Rather, the tariffs were used as leverage in negotiating a solution, which the statute does not contemplate. 

The D.C. District Court found that IEEPA does not support the President’s tariffs, and the implementing agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act, but declined to reach arguments specific to the President’s tariffs and IEEPA. It remains to be seen which court will ultimately have jurisdiction, as both have held that they do.&nbsp;

Though the CIT vacated the President’s tariff orders and permanently enjoined their enforcement nationwide, the Federal Circuit’s administrative stay, pending resolution of the government’s motion to stay pending appeal, postpones the lower courts actions. The tariffs, accordingly, remain in effect for the moment. If implemented, the CIT’s decision would have far-reaching consequences for anyone dealing with merchandise exported into the United States. Practically speaking:&nbsp;

All tariffs imposed under the challenged executive orders would be set aside, and importers would no longer be subject to the additional duties previously in effect under these orders.

The decision indicates that the President’s authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA is not open-ended and must be exercised within clear statutory and constitutional boundaries.

The decision also signals that future attempts to use IEEPA to impose broad tariffs—especially in response to trade deficits or as general leverage—will likely face significant judicial scrutiny. 

Next Steps and Key Takeaways

In addition to the Federal Circuit’s quick action to administratively stay the CIT’s order, the government has already appealed the CIT’s decision. Given the fluidity of the current situation, importers and affected parties should monitor developments closely and consult with counsel regarding the status of the ongoing litigation and any duties paid under the relevant tariffs and potential refund procedures. It is also important to recognize that IEEPA is not the sole mechanism available to the Trump Administration for imposing tariffs. Tariffs implemented on steel, aluminum, autos, and potentially future products under “Section 232” investigations are not covered by this decision.

Despite the superior court’s stay, the lower courts’ decisions mark a significant statement of congressional control over tariff policy and, until the appellate courts decide, a limitation on the use of IEEPA to regulate importation.&nbsp;

For further analysis or questions about how this ruling may affect your business or operations, please contact <a href="https://www.blankrome.com/people/joanne-e-osendarp">Joanne E. Osendarp</a>, <a href="/people/eric-s-parnes/" id="18842">Eric S. Parnes</a>, <a href="/people/alan-g-kashdan/" id="18840">Alan G. Kashdan</a>, <a href="/people/timothy-j-hruby/" id="18805">Timothy J. Hruby</a>, <a href="/people/brendan-s-saslow/" id="18841">Brendan S. Saslow</a>, <a href="/people/layla-s-najjar/" id="18631">Layla S. Najjar</a>, or another member of Blank Rome’s <a href="/services-and-industries/international-trade/" id="18498">International Trade</a> group.

core/button

core/buttons

core/separator

<a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> <a href="https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf">cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf</a>

<a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/contreras-blocks-certain-trump-tariffs.pdf">courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/contreras-blocks-certain-trump-tariffs.pdf</a>

Court of International Trade Sets Aside Presidential IEEPA Tariffs and Federal Circuit Postpones Nationwide Injunction

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

Court of International Trade Sets Aside Presidential IEEPA Tariffs and Federal Circuit Postpones Nationwide Injunction

Offices

Stay Connected