V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, 1:25-cv-00066

Plaintiffs, including both private entities and several U.S. states, challenged specific executive Tariff Orders and modifications, arguing they were beyond the government's lawful authority (ultra vires).
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, declaring the Tariff Orders unlawful and enjoining their enforcement.
The court found an injunction was appropriate due to the lack of a complete legal remedy through piecemeal duty refunds and highlighted the public interest in requiring government compliance with the law.
The court asserted exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), describing the challenged Tariff Orders as binding "laws" relating to tariff assessment.
The United States government moved to stay enforcement of the CIT's judgment pending an appeal to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay of the CIT's judgment while considering the appeal, prompting the CIT to hold its own consideration of the stay motions in abeyance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Tariff Orders	Orders are beyond executive authority (ultra vires)	Orders are within executive’s statutory power	Orders are ultra vires and cannot be enforced
Adequacy of Legal Remedy	Piecemeal duty refunds are insufficient	Refunds are a sufficient remedy	Legal remedy inadequate; injunctive relief appropriate
Court's Jurisdiction under § 1581(i)	Tariff Orders are "laws" for CIT jurisdiction	Jurisdiction should be in district courts	CIT holds exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes
Stay Pending Appeal	No basis for stay; public interest favors enforcement	Stay needed to prevent harm during appeal	CIT defers; Federal Circuit's stay controls

Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (public interest includes ensuring government acts lawfully)
Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat. Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974) (executive orders can qualify as "federal law" for certain purposes)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (ultra vires executive action can be enjoined)
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176 (1988) (explains need for consistent judicial jurisdiction in trade cases)
Orleans Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (overlapping federal court jurisdiction in trade matters)
Conoco, Inc. v. U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 18 F.3d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (CIT intended to ensure uniformity in trade law)