Appeals court leaves tariffs in place, seeks expedited argument schedule

A federal appeals court left many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs in effect temporarily and set a tentative expedited date to hear oral arguments in the challenge to the executive branch’s authority to impose tariffs.

The order, issued Tuesday by the Federal Circuit in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Nos. 25-1812, 25-1813 (Fed. Cir. 6/10/25), granted the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal of a nationwide injunction issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) that halted the imposition of many of Trump’s tariffs.

Tho order also requested the parties submit a proposed briefing schedule for the case that would allow oral arguments to be heard before the full court on July 31.

“Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits,” the court said in its order, adding that “a stay is warranted under the circumstances.”

“The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first stance,” the order said.

The rulings from the trade court, issued at the end of May, arose from lawsuits filed by five small businesses that import goods from tariff-targeted countries and another filed by 12 states. The Federal Circuit consolidated the cases in its initial order that also granted a two-week stay of the CIT’s nationwide injunction (V.O.S. Selections Inc. vs Trump, Nos. 25-1812, 25-1813 (Fed. Cir. 5/29/25).

At the heart of the challenge is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and how much authority it gives to the president. A unanimous three-judge panel of the trade court agreed with the plaintiffs that the IEEPA does not give the president the authority that Trump claimed.

Government attorneys, in a filing with the Federal Circuit, said the trade court “misapprehended IEEPA’s text to unnaturally cabin the president’s tariff authority. The CIT then ignored equitable requirements for injunctive relief.

“The result is an illegal injunction that improperly usurps political choices by the political branches and arrogates to the judiciary a central role in managing foreign negotiations, the national economy, and national security. The injunction unilaterally diminishes America’s bargaining position during sensitive trade negotiations, encouraging other countries to hold our nation hostage and catastrophically harm our economy.”

The plaintiffs described the tariffs as “a breathtaking power grab” and said the IEEPA does not grant the authority to impose tariffs. “In the event IEEPA is ambiguous on tariffs, the major questions doctrine requires a ruling that Congress did not delegate the tariff power to the Executive,” they wrote in their filing to the appeals court.

In a statement on X, the Liberty Justice Center, which represents the plaintiffs, noted that “every court to rule on the merits so far has found these tariffs unlawful, and we have faith that this court will likewise see what is plain as day: that IEEPA does not allow the president to impose whatever tax he wants whenever he wants.”

The AICPA maintains several tariff-related resources:

• Main resource page on navigating tariffs.
• FAQs on international tariffs.
• Actions finance teams can take on tariffs.
• Broadridge Advisor tariff resource downloads (Personal Financial Planning Section member exclusive).

— To comment on this article or to suggest an idea for another article, contact Martha Waggoner at Martha.Waggoner@aicpa-cima.com.