The Court of International Trade (CIT) on Wednesday issued a ruling in V.O.S. Selections v. United States that the anti-tariff establishment is already crowing about. One Washington Post columnist called it "Trump's biggest judicial setback."

The Trade Court Tells Trump He Can't Use Emergency Powers to Impose Tariffs

The Court of International Trade (CIT) on Wednesday issued a ruling in V.O.S. Selections v. United States that the anti-tariff establishment is already crowing about. One Washington Post columnist called it "Trump's biggest judicial setback."

But they may want to curb their enthusiasm. This decision is not the final word on President Trump's authority to impose tariffs, and the legal reasoning behind it is unlikely to stand unchallenged. Indeed, on Thursday, the Federal Circuit stayed the order, leaving Trump's tariffs in place for now.

At issue was President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on a wide range of imports, citing the fentanyl crisis and broader economic imbalances as national emergencies. The court struck the tariffs down, holding that IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose tariffs—and if it did, it would likely violate the nondelegation doctrine, a long dormant constitutional principle that says Congress cannot hand its legislative powers over to the executive branch without clear limits or guidance.

What the Court Actually Said

The Court of International Trade said the president's powers under IEEPA may allow sanctions, asset freezes, or restrictions on financial transactions, but not the imposition of tariffs, which are a revenue-raising tool that the Constitution reserves to Congress. The decision relied heavily on the text of the statute, which never mentions tariffs, and invoked the nondelegation doctrine to underscore its reading.

This is not a particularly radical or far-fetched interpretation of the statute. The Trump administration is the first to seek to impose tariffs under IEEPA and its legal and trade advisors knew they were attempting a novel use of IEEPA. They knew this would be challenged in the courts and that there was a good chance that they could lose the initial legal skirmishes.