On August 29, 2025, in a 7-4 en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed a lower court ruling, stating that IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to “regulate” imports does not authorize the tariffs. The dissent, however, took a broader view of IEEPA, stating that it authorized the tariffs. For now, these tariffs will remain in effect until at least October 14, 2025, while the Trump Administration appeals to the Supreme Court.
In an earlier blog post, we discussed the Court of International Trade (CIT)’s May 2025 holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize certain tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT decision striking down the Trump Administration’s IEEPA-based (i) country-specific tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico; and (ii) general tariffs on imports from most countries of between 10% and 41%. For convenience, we use the Federal Circuit’s terminology, referring to these as “Trafficking Tariffs” and “Reciprocal Tariffs,” respectively.
The Federal Circuit held that IEEPA did not delegate unbounded tariff power to the President. The majority opinion largely mirrors the statutory analysis of the CIT decision. The Court reasoned that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate . . . importation” does not grant the President “wide-ranging” authority to impose tariffs “of the nature of” the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs. Other statutes delegating tariff authority — such as Section 301 or 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — contain language explicitly delegating authority to impose tariffs, duties, and taxes, and these authorities typically include detailed procedural and substantive constraints on that power. The Court cited the absence of such language and safeguards in IEEPA as support for its decision that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs that are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration
The Federal Circuit also held that the challenged tariffs ran afoul of the major questions doctrine. It described the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs as “unheralded” and “transformative,” with immense economic and political significance. In such cases, the major questions doctrine requires clear congressional authorization, which the Court found IEEPA does not provide.
The Federal Circuit did not foreclose all IEEPA-based tariffs. In a concurring opinion, four judges argued that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs under any circumstances. The majority opinion, however, reserved its decision on this point and expressly stated that it was not “deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all.” Citing the 1975 Yoshida II decision, which upheld a temporary tariff surcharge under TWEA, which contains the same “regulate . . . importation” language, the majority suggested that, to the extent IEEPA authorizes any tariffs, any permissible use of IEEPA would need to be narrowly tailored to the specific emergency at issue. As the opinion explained, such authority is meaningful only if it is “appropriately bounded and not unlimited,” and the Yoshida decision itself was “expressly premised on the limits of President Nixon’s Proclamation.”
Although the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s judgment on the merits, it vacated the permanent universal injunction that had barred enforcement of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT to reconsider the appropriate scope of equitable relief. For instance, whether the US government may continue collecting tariffs from importers that were not parties to the suit. This remedial step reflects the Supreme Court’s recent Trump v. CASA decision, which narrowed the availability of universal injunctions.
The dissenting opinion is a potential roadmap for the Supreme Court to uphold the tariffs on appeal. The dissent primarily relies on a textual interpretation of IEEPA. In the dissent’s view, “regulate” is an inherently broad term that naturally encompasses the imposition of tariffs as a form of regulation. The dissent further emphasized that IEEPA’s structure includes procedural safeguards such as consultation with Congress and regular reporting, which serve as an indication that Congress intended to bestow broad regulatory powers to the President.
Second, the dissent rejected the majority’s application of the major questions doctrine. The dissenting judges argue that the doctrine has been used in “certain extraordinary cases” where it is implausible to think Congress meant to delegate broad new powers without clear language. On its face, however, IEEPA lists a broad host of powers—including prohibitions and restrictions “even more restrictive than tariffs”— and contains no suggestion that those powers are limited to certain products or countries. Citing a concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the dissent states that the major questions doctrine has not generally been applied in the national security or foreign policy contexts, because “the usual understanding is that Congress intends to give the President substantial authority and flexibility to protect America and the American people.”
The ruling maintains the status quo following the CIT ruling, but leaves the final word to the Supreme Court. For now, the challenged IEEPA tariffs remain in effect until at least mid-October. Tariffs imposed under other statutes, such as Section 232 on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, as well as other tariffs issued under IEEPA that have not yet been challenged in court, are unaffected.
Our global sanctions and trade team is closely monitoring these litigation and tariff-related developments. Please contact us if you have any questions on how to navigate the new trade landscape.
