VOS. v. US | Opinion | 5/28/25.
“The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” U.S.Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 3. The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (“IEEPA”) delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world. The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.” https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/court-of-international-trade-trump-tariffs-illegal.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The Court ruled on two types of tariffs: 1) the Trafficking Tariffs and 2) the Worldwide Retaliatory Tariffs. The ruling did not apply to the sectoral tariffs, i.e. the Trump tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. The court’s conclusion was as follows: “The court holds for the foregoing reasons that IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.” https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/court-of-international-trade-trump-tariffs-illegal.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The Trafficking Tariffs were set by Trump at 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico and 20% on goods from China. The President’s stated reasons were the plague of fentanyl deaths and overdoses among narcotic addicts and the rise of criminal cartels in Central America to manufacture and distribute them. The Constitutional issue is that Congress not the President has authority to set tariffs. US Constitution Article 1, Section 8. The President has no independent ability to set, establish, or raise tariffs; he can only act where Congress has authorized him to do so.
“Under the IEEPA there must be the following: first, there must be a “threat . . . which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” Second, this threat must be “unusual and extraordinary.” Third, a national emergency must be declared with respect to the threat. And fourth, the President’s exercise of IEEPA authority must “deal with” the threat.” https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/court-of-international-trade-trump-tariffs-illegal.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email What the International Trade Court found was that the tariffs on all imported goods from Mexico, Canada and China did not deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat of fentanyl. Fentanyl is a powerful drug responsible for many deaths; it is manufactured illicitly in Mexico by drug cartels that source their materials in China. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10400#:~:text=At%20present%2C%20most%20U.S.%2Ddestined,from%20certain%20countries%2C%20including%20China. As the court said, if you’ve got floods you deal with it by building a dam, or if you have a budget deficit, you deal with it by raising taxes or cutting spending. Likewise, you deal with a fentanyl epidemic by either reducing demand (e.g. drug treatment or prevention) or reducing supply (i.e. better border controls and interdiction or prosecution and incarceration of smugglers). You don’t “deal with it” by subjecting all commerce with our three largest trading partners to massive tariffs on all imported goods totally unrelated to fentanyl production, distribution, and consumption.
The World Wide and Retaliatory Tariffs were imposed by Trump under the IEEPA to address balance of trade deficits. Trump’s Retaliatory Tariffs were set 10% for all countries, with an add-on of up to 50% for 58 designated countries and then up to 150% for China. The Court said the proper statutory authority for tariffs to address balance of trade deficits is not the IEEPA, but rather the quite specific Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which was adopted by Congress to authorize the President to impose tariffs for balance of trade deficits. Section 122 limits these types of tariffs to 150 days and not more than 15%. Trump’s Retaliatory tariffs to rectify balance of trade deficits were far in excess of the amounts, duration and scope allowed by Section 122 and thus beyond the President’s delegated powers and authority. VOS v. United States https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/court-of-international-trade-trump-tariffs-illegal.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email