Future of tariffs uncertain as U.S. court considers appeal

Torys’ Canadian and New York offices will be providing regular briefs on the legal ramifications of the tariffs and other cross-border policy developments on the horizon.

This week, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down some of President Trump’s most sweeping and steep tariffs on grounds that the statute under which they were imposed, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), does not authorize the President’s actions and there is no connection between the tariffs and the emergencies they allegedly address. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed enforcement of the CIT’s judgment pending decisions on a longer stay and eventually the merits of the appeal. We expect that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be asked to weigh in too.

Background

As we first explained in our earlier brief, five plaintiffs commenced an action on April 14 in the U.S. Court of International trade, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, challenging certain tariffs, which had imposed a general 10 percent duty on all imports, with an increase for 57 countries purportedly aimed at addressing the U.S. trade deficit (Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs). Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and summary judgment on their claims.

On April 23, 2025, 12 states, through their respective attorneys general, also filed suit in the CIT, Oregon, et al. v. Trump, challenging the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs and President Trump’s tariffs relating to a stated national emergency of the importation of illegal drugs, criminals, and gangs from Canada, Mexico, and China (Trafficking Tariffs, and together with the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs, the Challenged Tariffs). Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, which the CIT construed as a motion for summary judgment. The Trafficking Tariffs as related to Canada are distinct from other tariffs on Canadian imports (including steel and aluminum), which were imposed under laws not before the CIT for review.

After hearing oral argument in both cases, the CIT issued a consolidated opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment (Opinion), and a judgment awarding plaintiffs relief (Judgment).

Note that President Trump’s 25% worldwide tariffs on aluminum, steel and autos are not challenged in this litigation. Those tariffs will remain in effect independent of the ultimate determination of these cases.

Opinion and Judgment

The CIT invalidated the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs because President Trump exceeded his authority by imposing them. In doing so, it relied on the doctrines of major-questions and congressional non-delegation, which are rooted in the U.S. Constitution. The major-questions doctrine, which was recently developed by the courts, does not permit the President to rely on ambiguous delegations of power to make decisions of major national significance. The CIT also found that there was a lack of express wholesale Congressional delegation to the President of Congress’s tariff powers. Because the IEEPA’s delegation of power to the President to “regulate…importation” does not permit the President to impose “unbounded” tariffs, the President exceeded his authority.

The Court also invalidated the Trafficking Tariffs because the limited tariff authority granted to the President under IEEPA may be exercised only to “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared . . . and may not be exercised for any other purpose”. Because the Trafficking Tariffs lacked a sufficient connection to the stated emergency they were purportedly imposed to “deal with”, they exceeded the scope of the statute.

The CIT entered judgment invalidating and permanently enjoining the Challenged Tariffs and requiring the Government to issue administrative orders implementing the Court’s permanent injunction.

Next steps

The Federal Circuit granted a brief administrative stay of enforcement of the Judgment on May 29, until it can consider the Government’s request for a longer stay pending the Government’s appeal on the merits. This means the Challenged Tariffs remain in effect for now. The Federal Circuit requested briefing to conclude by June 9; we anticipate a hearing and decision by mid-to-late June. The U.S. Supreme Court will then likely be asked to review the CIT Opinion and Judgment as well.

 
Read more Tariffs and trade briefs.