(UNITED STATES) The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to move quickly on whether President Donald Trump can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7–4 decision, ruled that IEEPA does not give the president authority to levy broad, across-the-board tariffs on nearly all imported goods. The court stayed its decision until October 14, 2025, to allow the government to seek high court review. As of September 4, 2025, the government has filed a petition urging the Supreme Court to take the case and decide it on an expedited basis.
At the center of the case are two sets of duties: the “Reciprocal Tariffs,” which add an extra 10% duty on almost all imports with country-specific increases up to 50%, and the “Trafficking and Immigration Tariffs,” which target nearly all goods from Canada 🇨🇦, Mexico, and China. Both the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) have held that IEEPA does not authorize these broad measures. The tariffs remain in force for now because the Federal Circuit vacated a universal injunction and then stayed its own ruling until mid-October.
The latest procedural steps mirror a fast-moving legal fight that began when small businesses—including wine importer V.O.S. Selections Inc.—and a coalition of states sued, arguing that President Trump exceeded his statutory authority. The CIT ruled against the administration on May 28, 2025, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on August 29. The government responded with a formal request for the Supreme Court to hear the case quickly, setting up a possible decision in the coming weeks or months.
Case snapshot and core legal issue
The case turns on the reach of IEEPA, a law that allows a president to respond to national emergencies through economic measures. President Trump issued five executive orders invoking a national emergency and then used IEEPA to impose the tariffs at issue.
- The administration’s position: IEEPA grants broad emergency powers, including the ability to raise duties in response to threats to national security.
- The plaintiffs’ position: IEEPA cannot be stretched to cover near-universal tariffs that effectively alter basic trade rules without congressional approval.
Both the CIT and the Federal Circuit sided with the challengers, concluding that IEEPA does not authorize such sweeping tariff actions. The Federal Circuit’s stay holds until October 14, 2025, to allow the Supreme Court to decide whether to take the case and, if it does, whether to fast-track it.
The narrow legal question: Does IEEPA allow the president to impose near-universal tariffs during a declared emergency, or does that move beyond the statute? Both the CIT and the Federal Circuit answered “no.”
Practical stakes and potential outcomes
The outcome will shape the balance of trade authority between the president and Congress:
- If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts:
- A president’s use of IEEPA to adjust tariffs on a broad scale would be sharply limited.
- Future presidents would likely need congressional action before imposing similar nationwide duties.
- If the Supreme Court reverses:
- The president’s authority under IEEPA would remain broad, allowing large tariff programs during declared emergencies.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case could set a major precedent shaping both executive trade power and emergency economic policy for years.
Impacts on businesses, states, and consumers
Importers and states supporting the lawsuit say the tariffs caused immediate harms:
- Small businesses (e.g., V.O.S. Selections Inc.) report:
- Higher costs that cut into thin margins.
- Forced choices on staffing, sourcing, and pricing.
- State governments report:
- Increased prices for state projects.
- Pressure on local economies.
- Consumers face:
- Higher prices at the checkout as import costs rise.
Supporters of the administration argue that:
- Fast executive action is sometimes necessary to address threats.
- IEEPA should remain flexible when emergencies arise.
Trade groups warn that uncertainty—even when courts issue stays or injunctions—can slow investment and hiring because businesses hesitate to make long-term plans amid shifting tariffs.
Key procedural timeline
The next month is critical. The key dates:
- May 28, 2025: CIT rules against the tariffs; enforcement is enjoined, but that ruling did not take effect while appeals proceeded.
- August 29, 2025: Federal Circuit affirms the CIT in a 7–4 decision; vacates the universal injunction; stays its own ruling until October 14, 2025.
- September 4, 2025: Government petitions the Supreme Court for expedited consideration.
- October 14, 2025: Stay expires unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
If the stay expires without Supreme Court intervention, the lower courts’ judgments could lead to lifting the challenged tariffs. If the Court grants relief or expedited review, the duties could remain in place while the high court decides.
Broader legal and economic implications
- Legal scholars see this as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify how emergency economic powers fit within the separation of powers framework.
- National security advocates warn that narrowing IEEPA here could hamper rapid responses to emergent threats.
- Business coalitions caution that a prolonged tariff regime will maintain economic disruption for importers, retailers, and consumers.
The dispute demonstrates how trade policy affects daily life: importers must decide whether to pass on costs, families weigh higher prices against tight budgets, and states re-evaluate project estimates. The outcome will ripple across budgets, hiring plans, and regional economies in the United States and Canada.
What to watch next
- Whether the Supreme Court grants the petition for expedited review and, if so, the schedule it sets.
- Any interim orders from the Court that could extend or modify the Federal Circuit’s stay.
- Updates to filings and orders, which can be tracked on the Supreme Court’s official docket: Supreme Court docket.
For trade compliance specifics—such as current tariff rates and enforcement practices—refer to federal agency postings and monitor court orders as they are issued. VisaVerge.com reports that this dispute may become a landmark ruling on the scope of presidential power under IEEPA, influencing how future administrations balance emergency declarations and long-term trade policy.
Key takeaway: The Supreme Court’s handling of the petition—whether it grants expedited review, sets a briefing calendar, or issues interim relief—will determine the pace and direction of tariff policy and the practical effects felt by businesses, states, and families across the United States and Canada.
This Article in a Nutshell
On August 29, 2025, the Federal Circuit ruled 7–4 that IEEPA does not permit the president to impose broad, near-universal tariffs, affirming the U.S. Court of International Trade. The court stayed its decision until October 14, 2025, giving the government time to seek expedited Supreme Court review; the administration filed that petition on September 4. The disputed measures include Reciprocal Tariffs (10% base, up to 50%) and Trafficking and Immigration Tariffs targeting Canada, Mexico, and China. Plaintiffs—small businesses and states—argued the president exceeded statutory authority. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts, future presidents will face limits using IEEPA for sweeping tariff programs; a reversal would preserve broad executive authority. The case carries major implications for trade policy, business costs, and the separation of powers.
