Overview
On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a landmark decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., invalidating most of the global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). In a 7–4 ruling, the court held that President Trump exceeded his statutory authority by imposing sweeping tariffs on imports from dozens of countries, including China, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. The decision, however, will not take effect until October 14, 2025, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court review. For a comprehensive list of tariffs imposed or revised by the Trump Administration, please refer to our Tariff Tracker.
Key Findings
IEEPA Does Not Authorize Tariffs
The court concluded that IEEPA, enacted in 1977 to address national emergencies, does not grant the President the power to impose tariffs. The court specifically noted how the statute lacks any reference to duties, taxes, or trade remedies, and emphasized that such powers are constitutionally vested in Congress. In its statutory analysis, the court rejected the Trump Administration's argument that tariffs could be justified as part of a broader emergency response to issues like trade imbalances or fentanyl trafficking. The majority found that these concerns, while serious, do not constitute the kind of "unusual and extraordinary threat" contemplated by IEEPA. Moreover, the court noted that interpreting IEEPA to allow unilateral tariff imposition would effectively grant the President unlimited economic authority, contrary to both the statute's text and its legislative history.
Applicability of Major Questions Doctrine
The majority opinion also invoked the "major questions doctrine," a constitutional principle requiring clear congressional authorization for executive actions with significant economic or political impact. The court found that Trump's tariffs, implemented under emergency powers and affecting a wide range of imports, were both "unprecedented" and "transformative" in scope. While total customs revenue from Trump-era tariffs has exceeded $81 billion,1 the court emphasized that such sweeping economic measures require clear congressional authorization under the major questions doctrine. As such, they required explicit statutory authority, which IEEPA does not provide. The court further stressed that allowing the President to impose tariffs under IEEPA would effectively transfer core legislative powers to the executive, violating the separation of powers.
Scope and Impact of the Tariffs
As further detailed in our Tariff Tracker, the challenged tariffs apply to a vast array of goods from numerous countries, with rates ranging from 10% to 50%. We last reported on the Trump Administration's tariff strategy in our August 6 post, "U.S. Imposes Secondary Tariffs on Russian Oil Purchases, Raising Combined India Tariffs to 50%", which detailed the imposition of additional 25% tariffs on Indian imports in response to India's continued purchases and resale of Russian oil, and outlined the broader framework for evaluating similar actions against other countries.
The economic impact of Trump's tariff measures has been substantial. More than 359 companies worldwide have responded to the tariffs, citing earnings losses, supply chain disruptions, and price increases, with the total global profit impact estimated to exceed $34 billion.2
Trump Administration's Response
In a Truth Social post following the ruling, President Trump denounced the ruling as "Highly Partisan" and vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court.3 He warned that removing the tariffs would "destroy the United States of America" and undermine national security. As noted above, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision has allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14 to enable the Trump Administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The underlying lawsuits to the decision were brought by small businesses and a coalition of Democratic-led states, who argued that the trade deficit and fentanyl trafficking do not constitute emergencies under IEEPA. Attorneys for the plaintiffs hailed the decision as a reaffirmation of constitutional limits on executive power.
Next Steps
The decision underscores the limits of executive authority under emergency statutes and may have broader implications for presidential powers in trade and foreign affairs. It also reinforces the principle that tariff authority resides with Congress, not the President.
The Trump Administration is expected to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. If the ruling stands, it could invalidate billions in tariffs and prompt legal challenges from importers seeking reimbursement. Businesses involved in international trade should monitor developments closely and assess exposure to affected tariff regimes. We will update this post upon the Supreme Court's decision to grant or deny certiorari, or any other significant appellate developments.
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.
