Tag: U.S. Court of International Trade

The U.S. Court of International Trade recently struck down the broad “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), concluding that the president had exceeded his statutory authority (Trump v. United States, No. 25‐CIT‐00123). Yet, rather than marking the end of an aggressive tariff regime, this ruling appears to have catalyzed an evolution in the administration’s trade approach. In the days following the decision, senior officials signaled a pivot toward invoking alternative legal authorities—namely Sections 232 and 301 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—to sustain and potentially broaden U.S. import levies.

On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) delivered a landmark ruling invalidating the broad “Liberation Day” tariffs that President Donald J. Trump had imposed without congressional approval. The court held that the president “exceeded any authority … to regulate importation by means of tariffs” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), concluding that “Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.” This decision strikes at the core of longstanding tensions over separation of powers, national emergency authorities, and the evolving scope of executive discretion in U.S. trade policy.

On May 28, 2025, the United States Court of International Trade issued a landmark ruling in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, striking down the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed by former President Donald J. Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These sweeping levies—ranging from a baseline 10 % duty on most imports to as high as 145 % on Chinese goods—were announced via Executive Order 14257 on April 2, 2025, and justified as an emergency response to persistent trade imbalances and threats to domestic manufacturing. However, the court found that the president had exceeded the authority delegated by Congress, permanently enjoining enforcement of the tariffs and ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection to cease collections under the challenged orders (Restani, J., May 28, 2025).