Editorial Note: Just a day after the CIT ruled the majority of the Trump administration's tariffs were unenforceable, the Trump administration filed an appeal to temporarily pause the enforcement of the CIT's ruling. In other words, tariffs are back and still in effect until a full appeal can occur. 

 

Federal Circuit Temporarily Halts Tariff Injunctions

Date: May 29, 2025

Signed by: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Per Curiam)

 

Executive Summary

This order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses the government's appeal of two rulings by the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT had permanently blocked certain executive actions imposing tariffs. In response, the government asked the appeals court to consolidate its appeals and stay the CIT's judgment and injunction. The appellate court granted temporary relief, pausing the enforcement of the lower court's rulings until further review. This action allows time for consideration of the government's formal stay request and for responses from the involved parties.

 

Key Provisions

• Temporary Stay Granted (Order Provision 2)
  The appeals court issued a temporary administrative stay, meaning that the judgments and permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade are on hold for now. This temporary measure is in effect while the court reviews the full stay motions submitted by the United States.
  (pg. 3, para. 2)
• Important Dates Schedule (Order Provision 4)
  The court set deadlines for further filings:
• The plaintiffs-appellees must respond to the government’s stay motions by June 5, 2025.
• The United States may submit a consolidated reply by June 9, 2025.
  (pg. 4, para. 2)

 

Source: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1812.ORDER.5-29-2025_2522636.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Court Overturns Tariffs (Temporarily Stayed)

Date: May 28, 2025

Signed by: Judges Gary S. Katzmann, Timothy M. Reif, Jane A. Restani

 

What it Means: Tariffs have been a major tool for the Trump Administration. This ruling strikes down all of the tariffs implemented since the President took office in February. The Trump Administration has already appealed this ruling, so this may not last depending on the outcome of the appeal.

 

Executive Summary

In this decision, the United States Court of International Trade ruled against the federal government’s imposition of wide-ranging tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court granted summary judgment to business and state plaintiffs, holding that the President overstepped his statutory authority by using IEEPA to impose broad tariffs on imports from nearly all foreign nations. This case arose from Executive Orders issued in early 2025, which levied new tariffs in response to purported national emergencies involving cross-border trafficking and global trade imbalances.

 

Key Provisions

Legal Foundation and Constitutional Framework

• The Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to levy tariffs and regulate foreign commerce (Art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 3) (pg. 3, para. 3).
• Congress can delegate authority to the executive only if it provides an “intelligible principle” to guide its exercise (pg. 4, para. 1).

IEEPA Background and Limits

• IEEPA was created in 1977 to grant limited emergency powers to the President for dealing with “unusual and extraordinary threats” (pg. 9, para. 3).
• The statute allows regulation of importation only within the narrow scope necessary to address such threats and only upon a declared national emergency (pg. 10, para. 2).
• The Court found that the statute was not intended to enable broad-based or indefinite tariff authority (pg. 25, para. 2).

Description of the Tariffs Imposed

• Tariffs were implemented through multiple Executive Orders starting in January 2025.
• “Trafficking Tariffs” imposed duties up to 25% on products from Canada, Mexico, and China, allegedly to counter drug and human trafficking (pg. 11, para. 2).
• “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs” included a blanket 10% tariff on imports from all nations, with increases for 57 specific countries (up to 50%) based on claims of trade imbalances (pg. 13, para. 2).

Court’s Findings on Presidential Overreach

• The Court ruled that IEEPA does not grant the President unlimited tariff power. Broad tariffs like those imposed in 2025 go beyond the authority IEEPA allows (pg. 25, para. 2).
• The Court emphasized that even under emergencies, tariff impositions must remain within the limits of authority Congress clearly delegates (pg. 26, para. 1).
• It stated that the President’s use of IEEPA in this case lacks both a valid “unusual and extraordinary threat” and a lawful national emergency justification (pg. 25, para. 4).
• The stated the declared national emergencies lacked a legitimate “unusual and extraordinary threat”. The Court found that the emergencies cited, such as foreign wage policies, trade deficits, or Canada’s and Mexico’s immigration enforcement, did not meet IEEPA’s threshold requirement of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” originating substantially outside the United States.
• The Court rejected the idea that declaring a national emergency grants the President a blank check to regulate imports in ways that are untethered from IEEPA’s core national security purpose (pg. 25, para. 4; pg. 26, para. 1).

Relief Granted

• The Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, invalidating both the Trafficking Tariffs and Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs (pg. 2, para. 1).
• This effectively nullifies those tariffs and directs Customs and Border Protection and other named officials not to enforce them (pg. 25, para. 4).

 

Source: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf