On May 29, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stayed the decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) from the previous day, which had vacated both tranches of President Donald Trump’s tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.). President Trump had invoked IEEPA to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs against nearly every country in the world (see Update of April 10, 2025) and specific tariffs against Canada, Mexico (see Update of March 6, 2025) and China (see Update of May 12, 2025). As a result of the stay, the two tranches of tariffs remain in effect pending the CAFC’s review of the motion to stay of the CIT’s judgment and injunction. The CIT’s per curiam decision, however, places the burden on the Trump administration to continue defending the position that IEEPA is a valid legal basis for the tariffs.
The CIT Decision
Heard by a three-judge panel (one Reagan appointee, one Obama appointee, and one Trump appointee), the CIT case consolidated two of seven lawsuits currently challenging IEEPA as a lawful means to impose tariffs—one filed by five small businesses and the other filed by Oregon (and joined by eleven other states). The CIT panel ultimately ruled that the challenged tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation,” and laid out three key reasons for this conclusion.
The CIT panel grounded their decision in a structuralist interpretation of U.S. law, emphasizing that while IEEPA grants the President some authority to “regulate…importation,” the Constitution explicitly assigns the power to impose tariffs to Congress. Given “the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress,” the judges explained, IEEPA cannot be read “to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.” Such a reading is necessary to “avoid constitutional infirmities” and reinforce the principle that Congress, not the President, holds the primary authority over tariffs.
The CIT panel considered the legislative intent behind IEEPA, which was enacted after the Watergate scandal to limit, not expand, presidential power. According to the panel, interpreting the statute now to allow broad tariff authority would undermine the rationale for why Congress passed IEEPA. The CIT panel acknowledged that President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs — which were intended to address trade imbalances, a type of balance-of-payments deficit — could potentially proceed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974; this provision, however, only allows for emergency tariffs up to 15% and only for 150 days (i.e., about five months). After that time period expires, Congress must approve any extension.
The CIT panel embraced a textualist argument to address the specific tariffs imposed against Canada, Mexico, and China, which President Trump justified on the grounds that these countries were failing to “arrest, seize, detain, or otherwise intercept” drug trafficking organizations, human traffickers, and criminals at large. The CIT pointed out that any measures undertaken pursuant to IEEPA must “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat,” but the phrase “deal with” necessitates “a direct link between an act and the problem it purports to address.” The panel found that “Customs’s collection of tariffs on lawful imports does not … relate to foreign governments’ efforts to arrest seize, detain, or otherwise intercept” bad actors.
The CIT panel concluded that “the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs [as] they are unlawful … to all,” and issued a nationwide injunction to halt the tariffs—marking a significant limitation on the President’s ability to use IEEPA as a tool for imposing tariffs.
Tariffs Under Other Statutes Not Affected
This CIT ruling does not invalidate or otherwise impact tariffs implemented by President Trump under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and under Section 232 of the Trade Adjustment Act of 1962.