US court of international trade invalidates Trump administration’s tariffs, citing excessive presidential authority

Washington, D.C., May 30, 2025 — The US Court of International Trade has unanimously struck down two categories of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, ruling that they exceed the President’s statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

A three-judge panel invalidated both the so-called “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs” and the “Trafficking Tariffs,” which collectively imposed duties on imports from nearly all trading partners and specifically targeted China, Mexico, and Canada. The lawsuits were brought by private companies and twelve States challenging the legality of these tariffs.

Background

The litigation concerns two sets of tariffs announced by President Trump in early 2025:

• The “Trafficking Tariffs”, justified on national security grounds related to drug trafficking and transnational criminal activity, imposed duties on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China.

• The “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs”, imposed a general 10% duty on imports from all countries, with higher rates—up to 50%—on goods from 57 nations, aimed at addressing persistent trade imbalances.

Both sets of tariffs were enacted under the authority of IEEPA, which allows the President to declare a national emergency and exercise certain economic powers.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The Court undertook a constitutional and statutory review, focusing on whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose such expansive tariffs without congressional approval.

“The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to ‘lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,’ and to ‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,’” the Court emphasized.

It concluded that IEEPA does not confer such a broad delegation of authority, especially for imposing unlimited tariffs on imports from nearly every country worldwide.

The Court noted:

• The tariffs imposed via Executive Order 14257, starting April 2025, lack the statutory limits Congress intended when enacting IEEPA in 1977.

• Unlike prior cases upholding limited presidential trade actions, these tariffs represent an unprecedented, open-ended use of emergency powers.

• Congressional reforms post-1977 clearly sought to limit executive emergency authority, which the current tariffs circumvent.

The ruling further distinguished these tariffs from mechanisms established under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which provides for tariffs capped at 15% and subject to 150-day time limits—procedures the Court found the Trump administration’s tariffs effectively bypassed.

Regarding the “Trafficking Tariffs,” the Court rejected the administration’s assertion that they were justified as emergency measures to combat drug trafficking and border security threats, holding that the tariffs did not adequately “deal with” the purported emergencies as required by IEEPA.

The Court also affirmed its jurisdiction to review presidential national security determinations, countering the administration’s claims of judicial non-interference.

“The duty of courts to decide such questions has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court,” the judgment stated.

Parties and Representation

Private plaintiffs in the case included MicroKits, FishUSA, and Genova Pipe, represented by the Liberty Justice Center and legal scholars such as Ilya Somin. The State plaintiffs were led by Oregon and joined by Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont.

The United States government was represented by the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, alongside attorneys from the Departments of Homeland Security and Commerce, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Implications

This ruling marks a significant limitation on executive power in trade policy, reinforcing Congress’s constitutional role in regulating commerce and imposing tariffs. It also clarifies judicial oversight of presidential emergency powers, especially in contexts where broad economic measures are invoked under national security pretexts.