Through a series of Executive Orders issued in Q1 and Q2 2025, President Trump imposed wide-ranging and, in some cases, significant tariffs on imports to the United States. In late May, those tariffs were held to be unconstitutional and were permanently enjoined nationwide. The Government appealed to the Federal Circuit, which has granted a brief administrative stay of enforcement of the Judgment until it can consider the appeal on the merits in late July.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a decision in an unrelated executive order case which held that federal courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions. Concurrently, U.S.-Canada trade talks—which many hoped would alleviate the economic uncertainty between the two countries—broke down when President Trump announced the imposition of 35% tariffs on Canadian good effective August 1, 2025. Unpredictability remains certain, at least for now.
Executive orders implementing tariffs
President Trump's flurry of executive orders at the beginning of his second term in office implemented far-reaching and steep tariffs on U.S. imports from a host of countries, including Canada. On February 1, 2025, President Trump issued executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) imposing tariffs relating to a stated national emergency of the importation of illegal drugs, criminals, and gangs from Canada, Mexico, and China (the Trafficking Tariffs). On April 2, 2025, also known as “Liberation Day”, President Trump implemented worldwide retaliatory tariffs, which imposed a general 10% duty on all imports, with an increase for 57 countries purportedly aimed at addressing the U.S. trade deficit (the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs—together with the Trafficking Tariffs, the Challenged Tariffs).
U.S. legal challenges
Seven individual suits were filed across the U.S. seeking relief from the Challenged Tariffs. Two of the suits were consolidated before the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) as V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States. In the first suit, plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and summary judgment on their claims. In the second, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, which the CIT construed as a motion for summary judgment.
On May 28, 2025, the CIT issued a consolidated opinion granting the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment (the Opinion) and a judgment awarding relief to the plaintiffs (the Judgment), invalidating the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs on the grounds that President Trump exceeded his authority by imposing them. In doing so, it relied on the doctrines of major questions and congressional non-delegation, which are rooted in the U.S. Constitution. The major questions doctrine, which was recently developed by the courts, does not permit the President to rely on ambiguous delegations of power to make decisions of major national significance. The CIT also found that there was a lack of express wholesale Congressional delegation to the President of Congress's tariff powers. Because the IEEPA's delegation of power to the President to “regulate…importation” does not permit the President to impose “unbounded” tariffs, the President exceeded his authority.
The Court also invalidated the Trafficking Tariffs because the limited tariff authority granted to the President under IEEPA may be exercised only to “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared . . . and may not be exercised for any other purpose”. Because the Trafficking Tariffs lacked a sufficient connection to the stated emergency they were purportedly imposed to “deal with”, they exceeded the scope of the statute.
The CIT entered judgment invalidating and permanently enjoining the Challenged Tariffs universally, requiring the Government to issue administrative orders implementing the Court's permanent injunction. The Government appealed the Order and Judgment to the Federal Circuit, which granted a brief administrative stay of enforcement of the Judgment until it can consider the appeal on the merits. The Federal Circuit will hear argument on the appeal on July 29, 2025, and enter a decision shortly after.
The uncertain future of the Challenged Tariffs
While the Challenged Tariffs remain in effect for now, their future remains unclear until the Federal Circuit issues a decision on the Government's appeal.
The CIT's universal injunction against enforcement of the Challenged Tariffs is now also subject to a new, independent challenge. On June 27, 2025, in Trump v. Casa Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that universal injunctions—injunctions against enforcement of a law against anyone, not just the plaintiff(s)—of executive orders, like the one entered by the CIT here, likely exceed the equitable power vested in the judicial branch of government. Casa pertained to birthright citizenship, but the holding's application appears unlimited in scope. At a minimum, we expect the Government to ask the Federal Circuit to remand the consolidated cases to the CIT for an opinion consistent with Casa's holding. If successful, and assuming the unconstitutionality of the Challenged Tariffs is upheld, the CIT's judgment may enjoin the tariffs as to the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases only, not universally. This would require any individual or company seeking relief from the tariffs to pursue their own application or join a class action to seek relief on behalf of a larger group of plaintiffs.
President Trump's 25% worldwide tariffs on aluminum, steel and autos are not challenged in the CIT litigation—they will remain in effect independent of the ultimate determination of these cases. Despite months of negotiations and hopes for an imminent agreement, President Trump announced a 35% tariff on Canadian goods effective August 1, 2025 if the U.S.'s continued concerns, including combatting fentanyl, are not satisfied by then. Canada has stated it is prepared to implement additional retaliatory measures if a trade deal is not finalized by that date.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
