Several court cases have recently been filed challenging the president’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is the authority cited for the “reciprocal” tariffs President Trump announced earlier this month as well as tariffs imposed separately on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico.
Jason Kenner, who leads ST&R’s Litigation Practice, said that of the cases brought so far one filed April 14 at the Court of International Trade appears to have the best prospects for reaching a determination on the merits due to the CIT’s unique jurisdiction. The importers that filed this case argue that:
- IEEPA does not give the president the authority Trump has claimed to “unilaterally levy tariffs on goods imported from any and every country in the world, at any rate, calculated via any methodology – or mere caprice – immediately, with no notice, or public comment, or phase-in, or delay in implementation;”
- Congress “knows how to grant the president authority to impose or adjust tariffs when it wishes to, and it has done so in more limited statutes” but did not specify such authority in IEEPA;
- the president’s interpretation of IEEPA as conferring such authority is not entitled to deference (pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright);
- the U.S.’ trade deficit does not constitute the “emergency” Trump claimed as justification for the reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA because it has “persisted for decades” and therefore is not “unusual or extraordinary;” and
- using IEEPA to impose tariffs runs afoul of the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress “to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.”
The importers also claim that even if IEEPA did authorize a president to impose tariffs “it would be an unlawful delegation” of Congress’ authority to regulate commerce and impose tariffs. A Congressional Research Service report earlier this year noted that federal courts have generally upheld laws delegating such authority to the president. However, that report pointed to a judicial precedent that in doing so Congress must set forth an “intelligible principle” to govern the resulting actions of the executive branch, and the importers argue that IEEPA provides no such principle.
The complaint therefore asks the CIT to declare this “unprecedented power grab illegal” and stop the executive actions imposing reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA. A motion for preliminary injunction, which could halt those tariffs while the litigation proceeds, is expected to be filed soon.
Similar cases have been or are soon expected to be filed in the CIT or U.S. district courts. Some of these make additional arguments, including that the IEEPA tariffs on China have no clear connection to the declared emergency regarding fentanyl imports.
The Department of Justice has moved to transfer cases filed in district court to the CIT and will likely do the same for any additional cases filed in district court. However, the plaintiffs in those cases are likely to oppose such a move because it could undermine their arguments that IEEPA is not a law that provides for tariffs or duties, issues over which the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction.
Click here to register for ST&R’s April 29 webinar on IEEPA and other tariffs.
Copyright © 2025 Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.; WorldTrade Interactive, Inc. All rights reserved.