Federal Circuit: Presidential tariffs exceeded legal authority under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
Decision withheld until October 14, 2025, to allow parties time to file cert petition in Supreme Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 29, 2025, affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued on May 28, 2025, that tariffs imposed by the president under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were not legally authorized. Read TradeNewsFlash
The case was heard en banc (with one judge not participating), and the majority opinion of the court was joined by seven judges, while a dissenting opinion was joined by four judges.
The case is: V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-1812 (Fed. Cir. August 29, 2025). Read the court’s opinion
The Federal Circuit on August 29, 2025, also issued a separate order directing that its opinion be withheld until October 14, 2025, to allow the parties time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.
Summary
The case concerns five executive orders (EOs) imposing duties on foreign trading partners to address emergencies declared by the president. EOs 14193, 14194, and 14195 relate to “Trafficking Tariffs” (i.e., the fentanyl/migration tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico), while EOs 14257 and 14266 relate to “Reciprocal Tariffs.”
The Federal Circuit agreed with the CIT that Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term “regulate . . . importation.” The court found that the government’s interpretation of IEEPA as providing the president power to impose unlimited tariffs runs afoul of the major questions doctrine, which demands clear congressional authorization for decisions of significant economic and political impact.
However, the Federal Circuit vacated the CIT’s grant of a permanent injunction of the operation of the challenged EOs and remanded to the CIT to reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief (and the proper scope of such relief), after considering all four factors set out in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) and the intervening decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025).
KPMG observation
Tariffs imposed under separate legislative authority, including the Section 232 steel/aluminum and automobile/auto parts tariffs and Section 301 tariffs, are unaffected by the Federal Circuit’s decision and remain in force.