Are you keeping up with the latest developments in U.S. trade policy? In 2025, President Donald Trump once again invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on most U.S. imports. This move quickly triggered widespread legal challenges, and preliminary federal court rulings have already questioned the legality of these tariffs.

IEEPA Tariffs: The Disputed Boundaries of Power

Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to impose import tariffs and regulate foreign commerce rests with Congress. Congress has indeed enacted several laws authorizing the executive branch to impose tariffs under specific circumstances. Examples include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (steel and aluminum tariffs), Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (solar cell products and washing machine tariffs), and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (tariffs on imports from China).

However, the Trump administration this time chose to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act grants the President broad economic authorities to address national emergencies declared under the National Emergencies Act (NEA), especially those threats originating substantially outside the U.S. to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. IEEPA authorizes the President to "regulate" or "prohibit" imports. Crucially, IEEPA does not specifically authorize tariffs. Unlike other express tariff authorities, IEEPA does not require an executive agency to conduct an investigation or make findings, making its power boundaries a central point of contention.

Core Disputes and Court Rulings

On February 1, 2025, President Trump invoked IEEPA to impose "trafficking tariffs" on goods from China, Canada, and Mexico, declaring emergencies related to illicit drugs and illegal immigration. Subsequently, on April 2, 2025, he declared a separate emergency concerning "a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships" and "disparate tariff rates," and based on this declaration, imposed "worldwide tariffs" of at least 10% on imports from almost all U.S. trading partners.

In response to these IEEPA tariffs, multiple parties filed lawsuits, primarily arguing that these tariffs "exceeded the scope of the President's legal powers (ultra vires)."

Currently, two significant federal court cases have issued preliminary rulings:

1. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States (also covering State of Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security): On May 29, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose these worldwide or trafficking tariffs. The court found that interpreting IEEPA to grant such "unbounded...by any limitation in duration or scope" tariff authority would violate legislative history and separation-of-powers principles, constituting an unconstitutional delegation.

2. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald Trump: On May 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from collecting the challenged tariffs from the plaintiffs. This district court's ruling was broader, holding that IEEPA simply does not authorize the President to impose any tariffs, as the Constitution separately grants Congress the power to impose "taxes" and "duties" and the power to "regulate" foreign commerce.

Important Note: Both of these court orders are currently stayed (paused) as the federal government has appealed, awaiting further review by higher courts.

Jurisdictional Disputes and Appeal Progress

Beyond the legality of the tariffs themselves, these cases also involve disputes over which courts have jurisdiction. Some plaintiffs filed lawsuits in U.S. district courts, while others chose the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), a specialized court with exclusive jurisdiction over certain trade cases. The federal government argues that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction and has moved to transfer cases filed in district courts to the CIT.

Currently, the appeal processes are moving forward:

• The V.O.S. Selections case has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has scheduled oral arguments for July 31, 2025, and will hear the appeal en banc (before all of the court's judges).

• The Learning Resources case has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for September 30, 2025.

Plaintiffs in the Learning Resources case even petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant early review to resolve the "paramount importance" question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs, but the Supreme Court denied their motion to expedite consideration.

Considerations for Congress

Given that the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants foreign commerce and tariff powers to Congress, these lawsuits regarding IEEPA authority underscore Congress's legislative importance. Congress could potentially clarify these questions itself. For instance, Congress might consider amending IEEPA to clarify whether—or under what circumstances—it authorizes the President to impose tariffs. Furthermore, Congress could consider legislation requiring a joint resolution of approval for the President to impose tariffs or use an existing provision of the NEA to terminate a national emergency and actions taken under IEEPA by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval.

This legal battle over IEEPA tariffs is not just a confrontation between the U.S. executive and judicial branches; it's also a crucial clarification of the boundaries of presidential emergency powers. We will continue to monitor the latest developments in these cases and provide in-depth analysis.