A unanimous panel (Katzmann, Reif, Restani) of the Court of International Trade has granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief in the V.O.S. Selections et al. and State of Oregon et al. challenges to all three sets of President Trump's IEEPA tariffs (worldwide/universal; retaliatory; and trafficking/immigration) and has vacated and permanently enjoined the associated Tariff Orders. Broadly, this is a resounding win for the Plaintiffs and there is no reason to think the outcome of the California case would be any different. The ruling does set out a clear path for the Administration to impose some tariffs under Section 122, but as noted below those are limited in degree and duration. Of course, the Administration will appeal and the Federal Circuit/Supreme Court may see things differently.
Here is a quick summary of the opinion (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/court-of-international-trade-trump-tariffs-illegal.pdf):
- The Court found both sets of plaintiffs had standing. The Government failed to "meaningfully contest the 'economic logic' tracing the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs to the V.O.S. Plaintiffs' showings of downstream harm." (page 21). The "Government implicitly concedes" the State plaintiffs are "importers who have personally paid tariffs" and thus have standing. (page 23).
- The CIT acknowledged the nondelegation and major questions arguments raised in the parties' briefs and noted the importance of separation of powers, but rather than working through the parameters of these, said: "Regardless of whether the court views the President’s actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." (page 28)
- The Court draws upon the Federal Circuit's decision in Yoshida (which upheld President Nixon's narrow imposition of tariffs pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act from which the relevant language of IEEPA was derived) for its statement that it was authorizing a limited surcharge, not "imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable" (quoting Yoshida at 578) and found that President Trump's tariffs do not include the limitations upon which the Yoshida court relied (including that President Nixon's tariffs were limited by the HTSUS rates while President Trump's have no similar limits). (page 30)
- Further, the CIT draws upon the legislative history underlying IEEPA to conclude IEEPA was intended to limit presidential power and that "regulate...importation" was not intended to mean unfettered power to impose tariffs. Instead, Section 122 of IEEPA (allowing tariffs to be imposed to respond to balance of payments problems) is the only authorization to impose tariffs pursuant to the statute. (pages 30-31).
- The CIT characterizes the Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs as "falling under the narrower, non-emergency authorities in Section 122" (page 34) but that the tariffs as imposed do not comply with the parameters set in Section 122 (pages 35-36). [Section 122 allows the imposition of tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address serious BoP issues]
- The CIT found the "Trafficking Tariffs" (encompassing the first set of IEEPA tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China regarding fentanyl and illegal immigration) do not fit within the scope of IEEPA in that the situations are not "unusual and extraordinary" and because the tariffs do not "deal with" the conditions identified. The Orders themselves would have to "deal with" the identified problems, nut merely create leverage (as President Trump has stated) to do so (pages 36-37; 44-45)
- The Court found the political question doctrine does not preclude judicial review of whether the trafficking tariffs deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat under Sec. 1701 of IEEPA (pages 37-41). "Section 1701 is not a symbolic festoon" and "the court will give it is due effect." (page 41)
