V.O.S. Selections, Inc. V. Trump

''V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States'' is a consolidated 2025 case brought by V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and other small importers, and twelve U.S. states in the United States Court of International Trade challenging president Trump's Liberation Day tariffs on the basis that these tariffs are unconstitutional and illegal, and would create a significant financial burden for businesses and consumers. The plaintiffs in both cases argued that President Donald Trump's assertion that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) gave him such broad powers to set tariffs was not valid.

A three-judge panel ruled on May 28, 2025, that the president does not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs in this way, and permanently enjoined the government from enforcing them. The administration has appealed this ruling, and the Federal Circuit Appeals Court has temporarily stayed the lower court's decision as they consider the administration's appeal.

Background

On April 2, 2025, president Donald Trump announced "Liberation Day" tariffs on many countries and products as part of Executive Order 14257, arguing that he had the power to set these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On April 14, 2025, the Liberty Justice Center, a public interest law firm, and Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University, filed suit on behalf of five small businesses against the Trump administration over Executive Order 14257. The plaintiffs argued that the administration had improperly used the IEEPA to impose tariffs that were not authorized by that law. In interviews, Somin argued that while the IEEPA had previously been used by other presidents in sanctions against other countries or to freeze assets of foreign terrorists, no previous president used the law to simply set tariff rates. He said that Trump's imposition of the tariffs was "an enormous abuse of power, and it still needs to be stopped". Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center said: "Our system is not set up so that one person in the system can have the power to impose taxes across the world economy. That’s not how our constitutional republic works..."

Legal proceedings

Lawsuit

On April 18, 2025, the plaintiffs, consisting of five small businesses which were facing potential bankruptcy due to the tariffs, and represented by the Liberty Justice Center, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court denied the motion on April 25, 2025, but ordered the Trump administration to respond to the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment. The Court set a briefing schedule and hearing to rule on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the Liberation Day tariffs. James Fanelli reported with ''The Wall Street Journal'' that, "Other challenges have been filed in the court and in federal district courts around the country, but the ''V.O.S.'' case is front and center so far." In ''V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States'', the plaintiffs were represented by Jeffrey M. Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center and the defendants were represented by Eric J. Hamilton of the U.S. Department of Justice.

On April 23, 2025, a coalition of leaders filed an amici curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs. The brief brought together "big-name constitutional law scholars across the political spectrum." Conservative and libertarian signatories included Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society and co-author of the leading treatise on the unitary executive; Michael McConnell, a prominent scholar of executive power; and Richard Epstein, a leading libertarian legal theorist. Joining them from the center and left were Harold Koh, a leading authority on foreign-affairs law; Alan Sykes, a noted scholar of international trade law; and Gerard Magliocca, a prolific commentator on constitutional history. The brief also drew support from prominent public officials, including former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and former U.S. Senators George Allen, John Danforth, and Chuck Hagel, policymakers Peter Wallison and Philip Zelikow, and attorney Joshua Claybourn. The brief emphasized a shared belief among the ''amici'' that "the endurance of the American Republic depends not only on elections or policy outcomes, but on the faithful preservation of its constitutional structure." The filing, dubbed the McConnell/Claybourn brief, was cited by ''Vox'' as one of the plaintiffs' two significant advantages, noting that co-signer John Danforth is a mentor to Justice Clarence Thomas and gave Thomas his first job out of law school. The amici brief proved influential in two district courts overturning Trump's tariffs.

In April 2025, twelve states led by Oregon filed a similar suit within the Court of International Trade, arguing that Trump did not have the authority to use the IEEPA to set tariffs. The states' case was consolidated with that from the Liberty Justice Center.https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/court-of-international-trade-edb2da94 The three judge panel consisted of judges Timothy Reif (a Trump appointment), Gary Katzmann (an Obama appointment), and Jane Restani (a Reagan appointee).

Court of International Trade

The government's response brief was filed on April 29 and the plaintiff's reply on May 6, 2025. The hearing was held on May 13, 2025.

The three-judge panel granted plaintiffs on summary judgment on May 28, 2025, permanently enjoining the government from enforcing the tariffs. The court ruled that the IEEPA does not delegate power from Congress to the president to create tariffs. The panel's opinion argued that while the president may at times be given limited powers to set tariffs, this does not grant the office "unlimited tariff authority" that Trump had claimed the IEEPA granted.

The opinion stated that Congress could only delegate tariff powers to the president if that delegation includes "an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such ariffrates is directed to conform"; if the IEEPA was intended to give the president broad tariff powers, then the court would have found the IEEPA unconstitutional as it lacked any specific conditions and limitations for that delegation.

A second factor is that the president does have power to set tariffs to address trade deficits under the Trade Act of 1974, but only at a maximum rate of 15% and for a maximum of 150 days; the court argued Trump could use this law to set tariffs but they would be bounded by the constraints of the Trade Act. A third point raised by the opinion countered the rationale given by Trump to fight the "unusual and extraordinary threat" of illegal drug trade into the U.S., and held that none of the tariffs issued by Trump did anything to stop drugs from entering the U.S, and rejected Trump's argument that other nations would be incentivized to stop drug trade to the U.S. to remove the tariffs.

Federal Circuit Appeals Court

The Trump administration appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and requested a stay of the permanent injunction. The Appeals Court granted a temporary stay while giving both sets of plaintiffs and the defendants time to submit briefs in regards to a stay pending appeal.

The court requested that the plaintiffs file their responses concerning the stay by June 5, and that the government reply by June 9. The circuit court granted the government's motion to maintain the stay on June 10, while also ordering an expedited ''en banc'' hearing on the substantive issues in the case on July 31, 2025, with additional briefings on the merits.

See also

* Tariffs in the second Trump administration
* Criticism of tariffs

References

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States''

2025 in United States case law
United States Court of International Trade case law