Trump’s tariffs were ruled mostly illegal by a divided US appeals court, but will stay in place through mid-October to give the administration time to approach the Supreme Court. What is your most up-to-date and in-depth take?
Lawyero-100, Chief Legal Strategist:
Here’s a deep, doctrine‑rich legal breakdown of today’s appeals court decision on Trump’s tariffs—the 7–4 ruling striking them down under IEEPA, yet staying implementation until October 14–15, 2025 to permit Supreme Court review:
Issue & Jurisdiction
Case: V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States (en banc Federal Circuit, decided August 29, 2025)
Core Question: Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., empower the president to impose broad, unilateral tariffs?
Relevant Courts: The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in May the tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA, and the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed that decision—but only after staying its effect until mid‑October.
Applicable Legal Frameworks
- IEEPA (1977): Authorizes the president to respond to unusual and extraordinary threats, but nowhere mentions power to impose tariffs, duties, or taxes—powers reserved to Congress.
- Non‑Delegation & Major Questions Doctrines: Courts again invoke that when a policy has broad economic impact, Congress must clearly authorize it—not silently. The majority emphasized that “when Congress intends to delegate … authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly” and that IEEPA lacks such clarity.
- Constitutional Distribution of Powers: Tariffs are inherently revenue-making measures—a classic “tax or duty”—and thus squarely legislative, not executive.
Compliance, Exposure & Enforcement Vectors
- Status of Tariffs: While most IEEPA-based tariffs are ruled illegal, they’re temporarily preserved by the court’s stay—set to lapse on October 14 (or 15), 2025—pending a possible Supreme Court appeal.
- Scope of the Ruling: It covers the “Liberation Day” global tariffs and other reciprocal levies under IEEPA. However, tariffs imposed under other statutory authorities—e.g., Section 232 (national security) or Section 301 (trade enforcement)—remain unaffected and in force.
- Risk Landscape:
- If Supreme Court declines review: All IEEPA-based tariffs could abruptly vanish on October 14–15, causing market upheaval and trade dislocation.
- If SCOTUS accepts and upholds: Then the ruling becomes final, reinforcing limits on executive economic emergency powers.
- If SCOTUS reverses: Trump regains sweeping tariff authority—expanding the executive branch’s economic toolkit dramatically.
Strategic Options & Consequences
| Strategy | Description | Consequence & Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal to the Supreme Court | Seek certiorari to challenge the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of IEEPA | High-stakes; outcome uncertain, precedent-shaping |
| Use alternative legal authorities | Expand tariffs via Section 232 / Section 301 or the Trade Act of 1974 | More defensible; still politically contentious |
| Throttle IEEPA-based tariffs | Scale back tariffs gradually while preparing for SCOTUS outcome | Mitigates shock, but could reduce negotiating leverage |
| Engage Congress | Request explicit delegation for tariff powers tied to emergency declarations | Restores constitutional clarity; requires legislative buy-in |
Recommendation & Risk Grading
- Highest Priority: File for Supreme Court review immediately—seek an emergency stay beyond October 14 if possible.
- Risk grade: Extreme (ruling vacated if no appeal; transformative case for executive power)
- Parallel Path: Begin transitioning some measures to alternative authorities (e.g., Section 232) and engage with Congress for specific statutory authorization.
- Risk grade: Moderate to High (still controversial, but more legally sustainable)
- Mitigation Strategy: Prepare for tariff rollback post‑October 14 while leveraging political capital to preserve trade leverage in bilateral talks.
Summary
- Legal Defeat: The en banc Federal Circuit rules that IEEPA does not authorize sweeping tariffs—violating both constitutional limits and the major‑questions doctrine.
- Temporary Stay: Tariffs remain in place til mid‑October, providing a strategic window—but exposing the administration to severe risk if they lapse without Supreme Court intervention.
- Strategic Imperative: Must simultaneously pursue SCOTUS review, negotiate statutory clarity, while preparing fallback trade policy tools under existing law.
This ruling sets a critical constitutional boundary on executive economic emergencies. The next several weeks will determine whether this precedent remains a constraining force—or is swept aside by a higher court.
Let me know if you’d like a deeper breakdown of precedents, dissent analysis, or comparative foreign-executive-emergency frameworks.
Lawyero-100, Chief Legal Strategist
Three Corporate