On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) unanimously ruled that President Trump exceeded his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) when he issued executive orders imposing tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners.
Stating that the orders are unlawful, the CIT permanently enjoined the executive orders which imposed the fentanyl-related and “Liberation Day”-related tariffs including: 1) 25 percent tariffs on certain Canadian and Mexican products, 2) 20 percent tariffs on virtually all Chinese products, 3) 10 percent “baseline” tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, and 4) currently paused, higher, country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs up to 50 percent on certain U.S. trading partners. (See our prior alerts here and here for details on these tariffs.) In a separate case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a similar ruling on May 29, 2025, holding that “IEEPA is not a law providing for tariffs.”
The Trump administration immediately filed an appeal of the CIT decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) and subsequently moved for a stay of the CIT’s injunction, which would allow the tariffs to remain in place temporarily. The Federal Circuit issued an order granting an “immediate administrative stay” of the CIT’s injunction. The order also details deadlines for response briefs: the plaintiffs-appellees’ response to the government’s appeal and motions to stay is due by June 5, 2025, and the government’s consolidated reply is due by June 9, 2025.
We anticipate the tariffs will, therefore, remain in force at least through June 9, after which point the Federal Circuit will determine whether to grant a longer-term stay of the CIT injunction. If the Federal Circuit grants that stay, the tariffs will likely be in force for at least several more months while the Federal Circuit appeal proceeds. The stay could also continue through any appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It could be months before the CIT decision is affirmed or reversed. It remains to be seen whether or how refunds for duties already paid by importers under the affected tariff orders would be refunded if the CIT decision is ultimately upheld.
The CIT ruling does not affect tariffs issued under either Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the president to impose duties on national security grounds, or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act), relating to unfair trade practices. Therefore, other tariff actions taken by the current administration—including 25 percent tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, and automobile parts—remain in place. The Trump administration has also initiated several Section 232 investigations this year, including investigations relating to copper, timber and lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, trucks, critical minerals, and commercial aircraft. We expect the Trump administration to continue to pursue, and perhaps increase its focus on, these investigations while the CIT decision is appealed. In addition, the Trump administration may also explore alternative legal instruments, including Section 122 of the Trade Act, that may authorize the imposition of certain tariffs in the event the CIT decision is upheld.
Please reach out to Josephine Aiello LeBeau, Anne Seymour, Jahna Hartwig, Navpreet Moonga, Bryan Poellot, or another member of Wilson Sonsini’s Tariffs, Customs, and Import Compliance practice or National Security practice with questions regarding any of the matters discussed above.
