V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump
2025 CIT 66
Ct. Intl. Trade2025Background
- President imposed sweeping tariffs (the "Worldwide, Retaliatory, and Trafficking Tariffs") on imports from China, Mexico, Canada, and other nations, citing national emergencies and authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
- Plaintiffs included both private importers and multiple states, alleging economic and operational harm from increased costs and impediments to state and business activities.
- Plaintiffs challenged the tariffs as exceeding executive authority, arguing IEEPA does not permit such unbounded delegation of tariff-setting power to the President.
- The defendants (United States, Customs and Border Protection, and others) argued the President acted within the statutory powers conferred by IEEPA, and such actions were not reviewable by the courts due to political question doctrine and deference in foreign affairs.
- The Court consolidated the two cases, granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, and vacated the challenged tariffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of IEEPA authority | IEEPA does not authorize unlimited tariff imposition; requires limits | "Regulate importation" includes power to impose tariffs during emergencies | IEEPA does not permit unlimited tariff authority |
| Delegation/Nondelegation doctrine | Unbridled tariff authority violates separation of powers | IEEPA has sufficient limitations; emergencies and threats justify discretion | Unlimited delegation would be unconstitutional |
| Major Questions Doctrine | Vast economic significance requires clear Congressional statement | Congress spoke clearly enough in IEEPA | IEEPA lacks clear authorization for vast tariff powers |
| "Deal with" requirement under IEEPA | Tariffs do not "deal with" specific emergencies cited in Executive Orders | Tariffs create pressure/leverage on foreign states to address threats | Tariffs do not directly address emergencies as required |
| Judicial reviewability (political question) | Statute sets reviewable conditions for presidential action | Courts cannot review President’s threat assessment under IEEPA | Issue is justiciable; courts can review |
Key Cases Cited
- Pan. Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (explaining Congress may not abdicate or transfer its essential legislative functions)
- J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (addressing the intelligible principle required for delegated legislative authority)
- West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (major questions doctrine requires clear Congressional authorization for matters of economic and political significance)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (statutory delegations must include an intelligible principle to guide exercise of delegated authority)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (striking down legislative vetoes as unconstitutional under separation of powers)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (delineating limits of presidential power under Congressional statutes)
- Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (discussing executive restrictions on international transactions under emergency powers)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (outlining doctrine for political question and judicial review limitations)
- Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (holding certain presidential decisions are unreviewable when committed to discretion by law)