Judgment below affirmed; grant of presidential authority to "regulate" imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders
Decision by
Per curiam: Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, Hughes, Stoll, Cunningham, and Stark
Concurrence
Cunningham, joined by Lourie, Reyna, and Stark
Dissent
Taranto, joined by Moore, Prost and Chen
Keywords
IEEPA
tariffs
executive power
nondelegation doctrine
major questions doctrine
trade law
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States is a consolidated 2025 case brought by V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and other small importers, and twelve U.S. states in the United States Court of International Trade challenging the Liberation Day tariffs on the basis that these tariffs are unconstitutional and illegal, and would create a significant financial burden for businesses and consumers. The plaintiffs in both cases argued that President Donald Trump's assertion that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) gave him such broad powers to set tariffs was not valid.
On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade ruled that the president does not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs in this way, and permanently enjoined the government from enforcing them.
The administration appealed this ruling to the Federal Circuit Appeals Court, which stayed the trial court's decision as they considered the matter. The entire Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on July 31, and ruled on August 29 in a 7–4 decision, affirming the trial court's judgment that Trump exceeded his authority under the IEEPA, but remanded the case to the lower court to further address arguments on the scope of the remedies, vacating the pending lower court injunction. The court of appeals also stayed its ruling to October 15, to give time to the Trump administration to seek review in the United States Supreme Court.
Background
Trump displaying the chart detailing tariffs levied against the United States and retaliatory tariffs ("Liberation Day tariffs") that he would issue in turn
On April 2, 2025, president Donald Trump announced "Liberation Day" tariffs on many countries and products as part of Executive Order 14257, arguing that he had the power to set these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).[1] Trump argued that there were numerous trade deficits that were unfair to the United States and threaten national security, and declared an economic emergency to justify the use of the IEEPA to correct them. Under the new tariff plan, nearly all incoming goods were set to a 10% tariff, with about sixty additional countries set at higher tariff rates. Further, Trump stated his intent to use "reciprical tariffs" and raise the rates on any country which implemented their own tariffs on U.S. goods in response to the new tariff plan.[2][3] Trump had pushed for tariffs alongside his "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by Congress in July 2025 which significantly cut government revenue from taxes but with more government spending, with the tariffs intended to make up the difference.[4] The tariffs did not come into effect until July 2025, during which the Trump adminstration secured trade agreements with some countries including Japan and the European Union, reducing the tariff rate applied in exchange for either investiments into the U.S. or importing more U.S. goods.[5]
On April 14, 2025, the Liberty Justice Center, a public interest law firm, and Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University, filed suit on behalf of five small businesses against the Trump administration over Executive Order 14257.[6][7][8] The plaintiffs argued that the administration had improperly used the IEEPA to impose tariffs that were not authorized by that law.[9] In interviews, Somin argued that while the IEEPA had previously been used by other presidents in sanctions against other countries or to freeze assets of foreign terrorists, no previous president used the law to simply set tariff rates. He said that Trump's imposition of the tariffs was "an enormous abuse of power, and it still needs to be stopped".[9][10] Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center said:[11]
Our system is not set up so that one person in the system can have the power to impose taxes across the world economy. That’s not how our constitutional republic works...
Legal proceedings
Lawsuit
This section may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please help improve it by adding information on neglected viewpoints. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.(August 2025)
On April 18, 2025, the plaintiffs, consisting of five small businesses which were facing potential bankruptcy due to the tariffs, and represented by the Liberty Justice Center, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court denied the motion on April 25, 2025, but ordered the Trump administration to respond to the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment. The Court set a briefing schedule and hearing to rule on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the Liberation Day tariffs. James Fanelli reported with The Wall Street Journal that, "Other challenges have been filed in the court and in federal district courts around the country, but the V.O.S. case is front and center so far."[12] In V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiffs were represented by Jeffrey M. Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center and the defendants were represented by Eric J. Hamilton of the U.S. Department of Justice.[13][14]
On April 23, 2025, a coalition of experts filed an amici curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs, stating "The powers to tax, to regulate commerce, and to shape the nation's economic course must remain with Congress. They cannot drift silently into the hands of the President through inertia, inattention, or creative readings of statutes never meant to grant such authority. That conviction is not partisan. It is constitutional. And it strikes at the heart of this case."[15][16] The brief brought together "big-name constitutional law scholars across the political spectrum" according to Reason, and included legal scholars Steven Calabresi, Harold Koh, Richard Epstein, Michael W. McConnell, and Gerard Magliocca, and former government officials Michael Mukasey, George Allen, and Chuck Hagel.[15] The filing, dubbed the McConnell/Claybourn brief,[17] was cited by Vox as one of the plaintiffs' two significant advantages, noting that co-signer John Danforth is a mentor to Justice Clarence Thomas and gave Thomas his first job out of law school.[18] The amici brief proved influential in two district courts overturning Trump's tariffs.[19]
In April 2025, twelve states led by Oregon filed a similar suit within the Court of International Trade, arguing that Trump did not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs.[20] The states' case was consolidated with that from the Liberty Justice Center.[12] The three judge panel consisted of judges Timothy Reif (a Trump appointment), Gary Katzmann (an Obama appointment), and Jane Restani (a Reagan appointee).[12]
Court of International Trade
The government's response brief was filed on April 29 and the plaintiff's reply on May 6, 2025. The hearing was held on May 13, 2025.[21][22][23]
Decision of the panel released on May 28, 2025.
The three-judge panel granted plaintiffs summary judgment on May 28, 2025, permanently enjoining the government from enforcing the tariffs. The court ruled that the IEEPA does not delegate power from Congress to the president to create tariffs in this way.[24] The panel's opinion explained its ruling that while the president may at times of emergency be given limited powers within the statute to set tariffs, this does not grant the office the "unlimited tariff authority" that Trump had claimed the IEEPA granted, nor could the Congress delegate such unlimited power under the Constitution.[25]
The opinion stated that Congress could only delegate tariff powers to the president if that delegation includes "an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such [tariff] rates is directed to conform"; if the IEEPA was intended to give the president broad tariff powers, then the court would have found the IEEPA unconstitutional as it lacked any specific conditions and limitations for that delegation.[25]
A second factor stated by the opinion is that the president does have power to set tariffs to address trade deficits under the Trade Act of 1974, but only at a maximum rate of 15% and for a maximum of 150 days; the court argued Trump could use this law to set tariffs but they would be bounded by the constraints of the Trade Act.[25] A third point raised by the opinion countered the rationale given by Trump to fight the "unusual and extraordinary threat" of illegal drug trade into the U.S., and held that none of the tariffs issued by Trump did anything to stop drugs from entering the U.S, and rejected Trump's argument that other nations would be incentivized to stop drug trade to the U.S. to remove the tariffs.[25]
Federal Circuit Appeals Court
The Trump administration appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and requested a stay of the permanent injunction.[26] The Appeals Court granted a temporary stay while giving both sets of plaintiffs and the defendants time to submit briefs in regards to a stay pending appeal.[27]
The court requested that the plaintiffs file their responses concerning the stay by June 5, and that the government reply by June 9.[28] The circuit court granted the government's motion to maintain the stay on June 10, while also ordering an expedited en banc hearing on the substantive issues in the case on July 31, 2025, with additional briefings on the merits.[29]
At the hearing on July 31, journalists observed that some of the judges seemed skeptical of the arguments advanced by the administration's lawyers.[30][31]
On August 29, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the ruling from the Court of International Trade on a 7-4 majority, with the majority stating that Trump had exceeded his authority under the IEEPA, that establishing tariffs was a power delegated only to Congress, and that the president's approach raised issues under the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine. The ruling invalidated the executive orders establishing the tariffs against Canada and Mexico as well as the Liberation Day tariffs, but did not affect tariffs on steel, copper, and aluminum that were placed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Judge Richard Taranto authored the dissenting opinion of the court, joined by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore alongside Judges Sharon Prost and Raymond Chen.[32] The case was remanded to the Court of International Trade to determine remedies.[33] The appeals court imposed a stay of execution to October 14 to allow the administration to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[34][35] Trump argued on social media that the ruling, if allowed to stand, "would literally destroy the United States of America", and vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court to overrule.[3]
The impact of the ruling, if upheld by the Supreme Court, is unclear, as it would threaten the basis of the trade deals made with other countries, and there would be extensive litigation from companies seeking recovery of the tariffs they had paid the government since the onset of the tariffs.[5]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
