No Result
View All Result
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLES
  • Login
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
TheAdviserMagazine.com
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal
No Result
View All Result
TheAdviserMagazine.com
No Result
View All Result
Home Legal

Federal Circuit Rules Against Trump’s Massive IEEPA Tariffs in Our Case Challenging Them

by TheAdviserMagazine
2 months ago
in Legal
Reading Time: 8 mins read
A A
Federal Circuit Rules Against Trump’s Massive IEEPA Tariffs in Our Case Challenging Them
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LInkedIn


NA

Today the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against President Trump’s massive “Liberation Day” tariffs in VOS Selections v. Trump, a case filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself on behalf of five small US businesses (we have since been joined by prominent Supreme Court litigators Michael McConnell and Neal Katyal; Neal skillfully conducted the oral argument before the Federal Circuit). The ruling also covers the case filed by twelve states led by Oregon; they prevailed, as well. On these points, a 7-4 majority of the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed the earlier trial court decision issued by the Court of International Trade. The court also remanded the issue of how broad the injunction against the tariffs should be to the Court of International Trade. That litigation is, however, postponed until October 14, to give the government a chance to ask the Supreme Court to review the case.

The majority concluded that the tariffs in question are not authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977  (IEEPA), and that the major questions doctrine precludes interpreting IEEPA to give the president the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims.

The majority, concurring and dissenting opinions are 127 pages long, and I will not attempt to cover everything in them here. I will merely highlight some key points.

Here is an excerpt from the per curiam majority decision (issued in the name of all seven majority judges), explaining why IEEPA doesn’t authorize the tariffs imposed by the president:

[I]n each statute delegating tariff power to the President, Congress has provided specific substantive limitations and procedural guidelines to be followed in imposing any such tariffs. It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs. The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs….

[W]henever Congress intends to delegate to the President the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs. This is no surprise, as the core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution; when Congress delegates this power in the first instance, it does so clearly and unambiguously…

Contrary to the Government’s assertion, the mere authorization to “regulate” does not in and of itself imply the authority to impose tariffs. The power to “regulate” has long been understood to be distinct from the power to “tax.” In fact, the Constitution vests these authorities in Congress separately. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 cl. 1, 3; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 201 (1824) (“It is, that all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform. In a separate clause of the enumeration, the power to regulate commerce isgiven, as being entirely distinct from the right to levy taxes and imposts, and as being a new power, not before conferred. The constitution, then, considers these powers assubstantive, and distinct from each other.”); Nat’l Fed’n. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 552, 567 (2012) (holding that the individual mandate provision of the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act was a permissible exercise of Congress’s taxing power but exceeded Congress’s power to regulate commerce). While Congress may use its taxing power in a manner that has a regulatory effect,… the power to tax is not always incident to the power to regulate…

Upon declaring an emergency under IEEPA, a President may, in relevant part, “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit” the “importation or exportation of . . . any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.” 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B). “Regulate” must be read in the context of these other verbs, none of which involve monetary actions or suggest the power to tax or impose tariffs…

The majority also emphasized that the government’s claim to unlimited tariff authority goes against the major questions doctrine:

The Government’s interpretation of IEEPA as providing the President power to impose unlimited tariffs also runs afoul of the major questions doctrine. See, e.g., Oral Arg.16at 19:28–19:39 (the Government stating “there is no limit on the cap of the tariff in IEEPA itself”). The Supreme Court has explained that the doctrine applies in “cases inwhich the ‘history and the breadth of the authority . . . asserted'” by the Government entails vast “economic and political significance.”West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697,721 (2022)…. In such cases, there may be a “‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.” Id…. When the major questions doctrine isimplicated, the Government must point to “clear congressional authorization” for that asserted power. Id. at 732….

The tariffs at issue in this case implicate the concerns animating the major questions doctrine as they are both “unheralded” and “transformative.” Id. at 722, 724; see alsoid. at 725 (“[J]ust as established practice may shed light on the extent of power conveyed by general statutory language, so the want of assertion of power by those who presumably would be alert to exercise it, is equally significant in determining whether such power was actually conferred.)” ….

Since IEEPA was promulgated almost fifty years ago, past presidents have invoked IEEPA frequently. But not once before has a President asserted his authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs on imports or adjust the rates thereof. Rather, presidents have typically invoked IEEPA to restrict financial transactions with specific countries or entities that the President has determined pose an acute threat to the country’s interests….

Additionally,…  tariffs are a core Congressional power. The “basic and consequentialtradeoffs” that are inherent in the President’s decision to mpose the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs “are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself.” Nebraska, 600 U.S. at 506 (quoting West Virginia, 597 U.S. at 730). Moreover, the United States imports more than $4 trillion of goods annually; these imports account for 14 percent of the nation’s economy. J.A. 215. The Government itself has claimed that the Reciprocal Tariffs will “generate between $2.3 trillion and $3.3 trillion over thebudget window….” The Executive’s use of tariffs qualifies as a decision of vast economic and political significance, so the Government must “point to clearcongressional authorization” for its interpretation of IEEPA. West Virginia, 597 U.S. at 723…

For the reasons discussed above, we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs.Reading the phrase “regulate . . . importation” to include imposing these tariffs is “a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power.” Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 765 (2021)

The majority goes on to reject claims that the major questions doctrine does not apply to delegations to the president (their reasoning is similar to that which I outlined here). It also rejects the argument that the doctrine does not apply because tariffs are a “foreign affairs” power.

The majority did not address whether the government’s claim of unlimited tariff authority would also run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine, which limits the extent to which Congress can delegate legislative authority to the executive. But it does note the significance of the fact that tariffs are a “core congressional power.”

The majority explicitly chose not resolve the issue of whether IEEPA can be used to impose any tariffs at all. But their reasoning suggests either that such imposition is indeed categorically barred, or that any tariff authority that exists under IEEPA is strictly limited.

The concurring opinion, written by Judge Cunningham, on behalf of four judges goes further than the majority. It concludes that IEEPA does not authorize any tariffs at all. It also indicates that the sort of sweeping delegation of tariff authority claimed by the president here is precluded by the nondelegation doctrine, which limits the extent to which Congress can delegate legislative power to the president, relying in part on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in FCC v. Consumers’ Research (which was helpful to our case in a number of ways):

The Government’s interpretation of IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation. Because taxation authority constitutionally rests with Congress, any delegation of that authority to the President must at least set out an intelligible principle that includes “both ‘the general policy'” that the President “must pursue and ‘the boundaries of [its] delegated authority.'” FCC v. Consumers’ Rsch., 145 S. Ct. 2482, 2497 (2025)… Similarly, Congress must “provide[ ] sufficient standards to enable both ‘the courts and the public [to] ascertain'” whether the President “has followed the law.” Id…. Because this is undoubtedly a case that “affect[s] the entire national economy,” the “‘guidance’ needed is greater . . . than when [Congress] addresses a narrow, technical issue.” Id…. For taxes, both “quantitative” and “qualitative limits on how much money” the President can raise are permissible, but it would “pose a constitutional problem” if the “statute gives the [executive branch] power, all on its own, to raise [a] hypothetical $5 trillion” with no “ceiling.” Id. at 2501–02.

The Government’s interpretation of IEEPA would be a functionally limitless delegation of Congressional taxation authority.

The majority did however vacate the trial court’s universal injunction against the tariffs, and remand the issue of the scope of the injunction to the trial court to determine how broad it should be, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling restricting universal injunctions, in Trump v. CASA. We have a variety of arguments as to why a broad injunction is appropriate in this case, even after CASA (see relevant section of our brief).

The dissent by Judge Taranto, on behalf of himself and three other judges, largely accepts many of the government’s arguments. I won’t go over them in detail here, as this post is already too long. Obviously, I have responded to these arguments in some detail in previous writings, and our legal team also did so in our briefs.

The court has, for the moment, stayed its ruling until October 14, to give the government a chance to ask the Supreme Court to review the decision. We shall see what the justices choose to do.



Source link

Tags: CaseChallengingCircuitfederalIEEPAMassiverulesTariffsTrumps
ShareTweetShare
Previous Post

Chainlink Consolidates Near Resistance, Is A Bigger Rally In Sight?

Next Post

Elliott affiliate’s $5.89 billion bid recommended as winner of Citgo auction

Related Posts

edit post
Arizona Attorney General sues US House for not swearing in representative-elect Grijalva – JURIST

Arizona Attorney General sues US House for not swearing in representative-elect Grijalva – JURIST

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 22, 2025
0

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes sued the US House of Representatives Tuesday for not administering the oath of office to...

edit post
CSU Law’s IP+ Conference 2025

CSU Law’s IP+ Conference 2025

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 18, 2025
0

On Friday, November 14, I’ll be in Cleveland to speak at CSU|LAW’s annual IP+ Conference (with a...

edit post
Chicago Woman Indicted Despite Claims She Was Shot by a Federal Agent

Chicago Woman Indicted Despite Claims She Was Shot by a Federal Agent

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 17, 2025
0

Marimar Martinez was charged on October 5, 2025, with assaulting a federal officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon after...

edit post
Highlights from ClioCon 2025 | Clio

Highlights from ClioCon 2025 | Clio

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 17, 2025
0

18 minutes read Published Oct 17, 2025 ClioCon 2025 showcased the future of legal technology, unveiling transformative innovations designed to...

edit post
The Four Shields That Endanger Children | Kathryn Robb | Verdict

The Four Shields That Endanger Children | Kathryn Robb | Verdict

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 17, 2025
0

Child sexual abuse is not rare. It is an epidemic. One in four girls and one in thirteen boys will...

edit post
Repeated “Nonexistent Cases” in Filing From >20-Lawyer Insurance Defense Firm

Repeated “Nonexistent Cases” in Filing From >20-Lawyer Insurance Defense Firm

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 16, 2025
0

From today's decision in Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual Pers. Ins. Co. (E.D. Mo.): Gittemeier posits that Liberty Mutual again miscited...

Next Post
edit post
Elliott affiliate’s .89 billion bid recommended as winner of Citgo auction

Elliott affiliate's $5.89 billion bid recommended as winner of Citgo auction

edit post
‘Trump Is Dead’ viral trend: How it started, Trump’s health update, and what happens if a sitting president dies

‘Trump Is Dead’ viral trend: How it started, Trump’s health update, and what happens if a sitting president dies

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
edit post
77-year-old popular furniture retailer closes store locations

77-year-old popular furniture retailer closes store locations

October 18, 2025
edit post
Pennsylvania House of Representatives Rejects Update to Child Custody Laws

Pennsylvania House of Representatives Rejects Update to Child Custody Laws

October 7, 2025
edit post
What to Do When a Loved One Dies in North Carolina

What to Do When a Loved One Dies in North Carolina

October 8, 2025
edit post
Probate vs. Non-Probate Assets: What’s the Difference?

Probate vs. Non-Probate Assets: What’s the Difference?

October 17, 2025
edit post
California Attorney Pleads Guilty For Role In 2M Ponzi Scheme

California Attorney Pleads Guilty For Role In $912M Ponzi Scheme

October 15, 2025
edit post
Baby Boomers Are Flocking to This Florida Town — but Not for the Weather

Baby Boomers Are Flocking to This Florida Town — but Not for the Weather

October 9, 2025
edit post
‘Subsidy cliff’ will return in 2026 if Congress doesn’t act

‘Subsidy cliff’ will return in 2026 if Congress doesn’t act

0
edit post
Arizona Attorney General sues US House for not swearing in representative-elect Grijalva – JURIST

Arizona Attorney General sues US House for not swearing in representative-elect Grijalva – JURIST

0
edit post
As national debt accelerates to  trillion, watchdog warns it’s ‘no way for a great nation like America to run its finances’

As national debt accelerates to $38 trillion, watchdog warns it’s ‘no way for a great nation like America to run its finances’

0
edit post
Dem Gerontocrats Try To Crush Graham Platner in Maine Senate Race

Dem Gerontocrats Try To Crush Graham Platner in Maine Senate Race

0
edit post
Willow Processor Maps Molecules 13,000x Faster Than Supercomputer: Google

Willow Processor Maps Molecules 13,000x Faster Than Supercomputer: Google

0
edit post
15 Best-Paying States for Women in Construction

15 Best-Paying States for Women in Construction

0
edit post
As national debt accelerates to  trillion, watchdog warns it’s ‘no way for a great nation like America to run its finances’

As national debt accelerates to $38 trillion, watchdog warns it’s ‘no way for a great nation like America to run its finances’

October 22, 2025
edit post
Willow Processor Maps Molecules 13,000x Faster Than Supercomputer: Google

Willow Processor Maps Molecules 13,000x Faster Than Supercomputer: Google

October 22, 2025
edit post
Alleged loan fraud is frustrating but isolated

Alleged loan fraud is frustrating but isolated

October 22, 2025
edit post
‘Subsidy cliff’ will return in 2026 if Congress doesn’t act

‘Subsidy cliff’ will return in 2026 if Congress doesn’t act

October 22, 2025
edit post
Dem Gerontocrats Try To Crush Graham Platner in Maine Senate Race

Dem Gerontocrats Try To Crush Graham Platner in Maine Senate Race

October 22, 2025
edit post
Is the Internet Dead? – Banyan Hill Publishing

Is the Internet Dead? – Banyan Hill Publishing

October 22, 2025
The Adviser Magazine

The first and only national digital and print magazine that connects individuals, families, and businesses to Fee-Only financial advisers, accountants, attorneys and college guidance counselors.

CATEGORIES

  • 401k Plans
  • Business
  • College
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Economy
  • Estate Plans
  • Financial Planning
  • Investing
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Legal
  • Market Analysis
  • Markets
  • Medicare
  • Money
  • Personal Finance
  • Social Security
  • Startups
  • Stock Market
  • Trading

LATEST UPDATES

  • As national debt accelerates to $38 trillion, watchdog warns it’s ‘no way for a great nation like America to run its finances’
  • Willow Processor Maps Molecules 13,000x Faster Than Supercomputer: Google
  • Alleged loan fraud is frustrating but isolated
  • Our Great Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use, Legal Notices & Disclosures
  • Contact us
  • About Us

© Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved
See articles for original source and related links to external sites.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal

© Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved
See articles for original source and related links to external sites.