The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and the District Court for the District of Columbia (“DDC”) both issued decisions enjoining the Trump IEEPA tariffs.  In both venues, the government appealed the courts’ decisions, and both orders are currently stayed. The DDC stayed its own preliminary injunction pending appeal; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay of the CIT order which will remain in effect until the court rules on the government’s motion to stay pending appeal. Briefing on that motion will be complete on June 9, 2025, after which the Federal Circuit is likely to rule quickly on whether the CIT’s injunction will remain paused or take effect.  In the short term, this means that importers must still pay tariffs on their imports; in the long term, importers are advised to keep records of their imports and duties paid in the event that courts rule that the tariffs are unlawful and order that refunds be issued. 

CIT

In the CIT, the 3-judge panel issued a decision ruling that the president’s IEEPA tariffs are unlawful and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and a permanent injunction on the government’s ability to collect tariffs pursuant to IEEPA.  V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump, Case No. 25-00066 (CIT, May 28, 2025); Oregon et al. v. Trump Case No. 25-00077 (CIT, May 28, 2025) (declaring IEEPA tariffs invalid and unlawful and granting permanent injunction).  V.O.S. and Oregon were consolidated on appeal by the Federal Circuit under V.O.S., Case No. 25-1812.

As noted, that decision is administratively stayed but a more substantive decision from the Federal Circuit on the government’s motion to stay pending appeal is expected as early as the week of June 9.

DDC

The DDC held that the IEEPA tariffs are unlawful, stating that the IEEPA statute does not provide authority to set tariffs at all. The DDC granted a preliminary injunction (i.e., not final judgment) which, unlike the CIT’s injunction, only applies to the plaintiffs in that case, and thus does not prevent the government from continuing to collect the tariffs from other importers.  Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-1248 (D.D.C. May 29, 2025).

The government appealed the DDC decision to the DC Circuit. On June 3, the DDC stayed its preliminary injunction pending appeal. On June 5, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite briefing on the appeal over the summer months and requested argument to be scheduled by September. 

Other Cases to Watch on Appeal

Ninth Circuit

The District Court of the Northern District of California State in California v. Trump considered the State of California and Governor Newsom’s identical challenge to the President’s authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. On June 2, 2025, the N.D. Cal. dismissed the action due to lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the government that the case should have been filed at the CIT. California promptly appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. California v. Trump, No. 25-3493.

In similar challenges filed in federal district courts in the Northern District Court of Florida (Emily Ley Paper, Inc. v. Trump) and Montana (Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security), the courts agreed that the cases should have been filed at the CIT. Unlike the N.D. Cal, however, the Florida and Montana federal courts transferred the cases to the CIT. In Webber, the plaintiffs appealed the district court’s transfer of the case to the CIT, arguing that the CIT does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the IEEPA and Section 232 issues raised by plaintiffs. In Emily, plaintiffs sought a stay of the N.D. Fl. order to transfer the case to the CIT to have the transfer reviewed by the Eleventh Circuit, a motion which the district court denied on May 21, 2025.  Once transferred to the CIT, the government filed a motion to stay proceedings of Emily Ley on June 4, 2025, pending the final decision in V.O.S. Plaintiff’s response is due June 25, 2025. 

Implications

The legality of the President’s use of IEEPA to support the imposition of tariffs and the jurisdictional question that goes with it are both appealing issues for Supreme Court review.  With a motion to expedite the appeal at the DC Circuit, a potential circuit split, numerous amicus briefs from high-profile legal practitioners, and urgent issues concerning the global economy, one or both cases are likely to reach the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the outcome of the government’s motion to the Federal Circuit to stay the CIT’s injunction will weigh heavily on whether importers will need to continue paying the tariffs while the cases are decided on the merits.