Gideon Korrell on V.O.S. v. U.S.: Court Rejects Tariff Power Under IEEPA

The U.S. Court of International Trade issued a major decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, which legal analyst Gideon Korrell called a landmark ruling, holding that President Trump’s sweeping tariffs—imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—exceeded the limits of executive authority and violated the Constitution. The ruling vacates the tariffs and enjoins their enforcement, bringing them to an immediate halt nationwide.

Background: Tariffs Imposed via Emergency Powers

Starting in January 2025, the President issued several executive orders imposing what were dubbed the "Trafficking Tariffs" and the "Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs." These included:

• 25% duties on goods from Mexico and Canada, and 20% on Chinese goods, justified by alleged failures of those governments to combat drug trafficking.

• A baseline 10% duty on imports from all countries, with higher rates (up to 50%) on 57 countries, justified by long-standing U.S. trade deficits and lack of reciprocity.

The plaintiffs—five small businesses and thirteen U.S. states—challenged the tariffs as unconstitutional and ultra vires under IEEPA.

The Court’s Holding: No Unbounded Tariff Authority

The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the President lacked authority under IEEPA to impose these tariffs, and issued a final judgment with immediate and nationwide effect.

1. IEEPA Does Not Authorize Unlimited Tariffs

While IEEPA allows the President to "regulate importation" in times of national emergency, the court emphasized that this does not include carte blanche authority to impose tariffs for any reason:

“We do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.” (Slip Op. at 3)

The “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs”—broad, untethered, and imposed in response to trade imbalances—went beyond what the statute permits.

2. The Trafficking Tariffs Do Not Address the Stated Threat

IEEPA powers must be used to “deal with” a specific “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The court held that the “Trafficking Tariffs” did not do that. Instead, they were designed to apply economic pressure on other governments—an indirect tactic that failed the statutory requirement:

“The Trafficking Orders do not ‘deal with’ their stated objectives. Rather, as the Government acknowledges, the Orders aim to create leverage to ‘deal with’ those objectives.” (Slip Op. at 46)

This made them unlawful as well.

The Key Consequence: Tariffs Vacated, Enforcement Enjoined

Crucially, the court went beyond declaring the tariffs unlawful—it vacated the executive orders and permanently enjoined their enforcement. This means:

• The tariffs are no longer in effect.

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other agencies must immediately stop collecting them.

• The ruling applies not just to the plaintiffs, but to all importers.

“The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined.”
— Slip Op. at 48

“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all.” — Slip Op. at 48

Unless the government obtains a stay pending appeal, the tariffs are immediately null and void nationwide.

Broader Implications

As legal analyst Gideon Korrell notes, the court reaffirmed that under Article I of the Constitution, Congress—not the President—has the power to impose tariffs. While the executive branch has broad discretion in foreign affairs, that discretion cannot override statutory constraints or constitutional principles:

“The mere incantation of ‘national emergency’ cannot, of course, sound the death- knell of the Constitution.” — Yoshida II cited in Slip Op. at 30

Final Takeaway

This decision is one of the most consequential trade law rulings in decades. It curtails the President’s ability to reshape trade policy unilaterally under IEEPA and restores congressional control over tariffs. For businesses affected by the tariffs, relief is immediate. For constitutional law and trade practitioners, the case is a bold reaffirmation of judicial oversight and separation of powers—one that, as Gideon Korrell emphasizes, could reshape executive authority for years to come.