In a major legal development for international trade, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled on May 28 that President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs—enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—exceeded presidential authority and must be vacated. The ruling stems from consolidated cases V.O.S Selections Inc. et al and The State of Oregon et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, and marks the first major judicial pushback on the sweeping trade measures imposed earlier this year.
The CIT concluded that the IEEPA does not authorize the executive branch to levy tariffs for reciprocal trade measures or for retaliatory actions related to fentanyl imports. Accordingly, the court ordered the executive orders to be permanently enjoined, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) instructed not to collect duties under those authorities.
Immediate Implications for Importers
While the CIT ruling is clear, the story didn’t end there. The very next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay, allowing the contested tariffs to remain in effect while it considers the government’s appeal. Deadlines for legal responses are fast approaching—plaintiffs must respond by June 5, and the administration has until June 9.
For now, the tariffs continue to be collected, and CBP has not yet issued formal instructions regarding refunds. Importers should note:
- Refunds are not automatic. Importers must actively monitor entries subject to these tariffs and be prepared to protest liquidations.
- Protest deadlines loom. For entries made on or after February 4, 2025, which are expected to liquidate in mid-December, protests must be filed by mid-June 2026.
- Post Summary Corrections are not currently available for these entries due to ACE system constraints.
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (ST&R) is advising importers to prepare to file protests to preserve refund rights in the event the court’s ruling is upheld after the appeals process.
What’s at Stake
The CIT ruling challenges a cornerstone of President Trump’s second-term trade policy, which has seen a dramatic escalation in the use of tariffs as a negotiation and enforcement tool. The Liberation Day tariffs targeted goods from China, Mexico, Canada, and many U.S. allies. Trump had justified the measures by citing national security concerns and accusing certain nations of contributing to the U.S. fentanyl crisis.
Critics, including the plaintiffs, argued that the Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the authority to impose tariffs. The court sided with that view, asserting that IEEPA does not provide a blanket justification for trade policy.
Trump’s administration is already signaling alternative paths to reimpose the duties under different legal frameworks. “If we lose that, we just do some other things,” said former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro.
Uncertainty Ahead
The back-and-forth legal proceedings have left businesses in limbo. While some companies prepare for potential refunds, others remain wary of supply chain instability. Analysts estimate that if the CIT’s ruling stands, the average U.S. tariff rate could fall from 15% to around 6%. But for now, the higher rates remain intact.
Certain tariffs—such as those on steel, aluminum, and automobiles—imposed under separate national security authorities remain unaffected by the ruling.
M.E. Dey is monitoring this development closely and will provide updates as soon as official guidance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is released. The situation remains fluid, and details surrounding enforcement, refunds, and appeals are still unfolding.
Sources: NCBFAA, ST&R, Reuters