Legal Battle Over Trump Tariffs Intensifies

Washington, D.C. (May 29, 2025) - On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. USA and Oregon v. Trump, issued a consolidated opinion that effectively overturns tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump in April 2025, as well as subsequent changes to those tariffs. The following day, a federal district court in the District of Columbia issued an order enjoining enforcement of many tariffs against private plaintiffs in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.

Both the CIT and District of Columbia delayed the effective date of their injunctions, for, respectively, 10 and 14 days, in order to allow the U.S. Justice Department to appeal the decisions.

On May 29, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit administratively stayed the CIT’s injunction and set a briefing schedule through June 9, 2025. The Trump Administration has also appealed the Learning Resources injunction to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which has yet to issue an order staying the injunction. In all likelihood, one or more of these cases will be heard by the United States Supreme Court in the coming weeks or months.

Background of Tariffs

On Inauguration Day, President Trump issued Executive Order 14157 declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (the “IEEPA”) as a result of international criminal cartels. President Trump expanded this initial Executive Order with concurrent and subsequent Proclamations and Executive Orders targeting international criminal organizations and drug trades. Under these Executive Orders, the Trump Administration generally imposed 25 percent ad valorem duties on Canadian and Mexican articles, which were later temporarily paused, and 10 percent ad valorem duties on Chinese articles, which were later increased. The CIT opinion refers to these tariffs as the “Trafficking Tariffs.”

On April 2, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14257 imposing a baseline 10 percent ad valorem duty on countries around the globe under the IEEPA with additional increases on a country-by-country basis. These additional, country-by-country “Liberation Day” tariffs were later paused until July 9, 2025 for all countries other than China. The United States and China subsequently agreed to a reciprocal 10 percent tariff rate, and the worldwide tariffs remain in place at 10 percent for the other countries until July 9. The CIT opinion refers to these tariffs as the “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs.”

As mentioned, the Trafficking Tariffs and Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs were imposed under the IEEPA, which permits the President to, in the case of a national emergency, regulate imports, among other things. The specific emergencies identified were largely trade related and included trade imbalances and deficits. A number of groups initiated litigation against the federal government, seeking effectively to block the tariffs. Two of these efforts culminated in the CIT order.

The CIT Opinion

The CIT panel concluded that the IEEPA does not delegate to the President the authority to impose unlimited tariffs, and that the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs are consequently ultra vires and contrary to law. The CIT also concluded that the Trafficking Tariffs fail to adequately “deal with” the threats set forth in the orders declaring national emergencies, which is a requirement under IEEPA.

The decision does not foreclose implementation of tariffs on other grounds. In fact, the CIT decision alludes to the potential for tariffs to be imposed under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for balance-of-payment deficits if certain conditions are met. It remains to be seen whether the Trump Administration will attempt to re-issue tariffs under a different statutory scheme, or whether it will merely litigate the issue in the courts of appeal.

The District of Columbia Issues a Similar Injunction

On May 29, 2025, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order granting a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Learning Resources case. The Learning Resources injunction prohibits the federal government from collecting tariffs against the plaintiff entities. The order likewise notes that the IEEPA prevents the President from imposing a host of different tariffs. However, this order is limited to the two plaintiffs in the case, and is not a “nationwide injunction.” The order is also stayed for a 14-day period to allow appeals.

Subsequent Appeals and Stay

On May 29, 2025, the federal government appealed the CIT opinion and filed a motion to stay enforcement with the CIT. The same day, the Federal Circuit issued an order granting an administrative stay of the CIT’s injunctions pending the Federal Circuit’s review of the government’s motions to stay the CIT’s judgments and injunction. The Federal Circuit also ordered the plaintiffs in the CIT cases to respond to the government’s motions to stay by June 5, 2025, with replies to be filed by the government by June 9, 2025. In other words, the motion to stay will be litigated on an extremely expedited basis.

On May 29, 2025, the federal government also appealed the Learning Resources decision to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending. The District of Columbia Circuit may similarly stay the district court’s injunction in the coming days.

Key Takeaways

In the coming weeks, expect to see more challenges to Trump’s tariffs litigated in the federal courts, with injunctions issued and immediately stayed by federal appellate courts. The host of pending cases all but guarantees United States Supreme Court involvement and clarification on the bounds of the IEEPA and other statutory bases for the Trump Administration to impose or modify tariffs.

Lewis Brisbois’s attorneys are actively engaged in the wide range of legal issues in this area and are advising clients on managing legal and business risk as events continue to develop at an accelerated pace. For more information, contact the author or editors of this alert. Visit our Ukraine Conflict, International Trade, Export, Import and Investment Controls & National Security Practice page for additional alerts in this area.

Author:

Griffen Thorne, Partner

Editors:

Andrew Pidgirsky, Partner and Chair of Ukraine Conflict, International Trade, Export, Import and Investment Controls & National Security Practice

Jane C. Luxton, Managing Partner - Washington, D.C.