U.S. domestic legal challenges to tariffs: state of play

Torys’ Canadian and New York offices will be providing regular briefs on the legal ramifications of the tariffs and other cross-border policy developments on the horizon.

Parallel to various challenges to the United States’ imposition of tariffs under international law that various countries have commenced at the WTO and under other international instruments, there are also numerous U.S. domestic legal challenges that have emerged. Our New York office provides its insight on these domestic disputes and where they may be headed.

Have the U.S. tariffs been subject to any legal challenges?

Yes, as of this writing, there are six (6) individual pending lawsuits, which challenge the tariffs imposed by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA or Act), as follows:

• Emily Ley Paper, Inc. d/b/a/ Simplified v. Trump (N.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2025) – Plaintiff is a small business that purchases products from sources in China and alleges the tariffs are “inflicting severe competitive injury in the form of higher costs, competitive disadvantage, and lost profits”¹.
• Webber v. Dep’t of Homeland Security (U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) Apr. 4, 2025) – Plaintiffs are two members of the Blackfeet Nation, an Indigenous tribe in Montana, who claim that executive orders imposing tariffs impact tribal business and travel across the U.S.-Canada border.
• V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump (CIT Apr. 14, 2025) – Plaintiffs are five owner-operated small business, which allege harm sustained by the tariffs. Plaintiffs are represented by the Liberty Justice Center, a conservative non-profit organization.
• California v. Trump (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2025) – The state of California claims that the new tariffs have already had “devastating impacts on the economy, creating chaos in the stock and bond markets, wiping out hundreds of billions of dollars in market capitalization in hours, chilling investment in the face of such consequential Presidential action”².
• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2025) – Plaintiffs are two small family-owned businesses that develop educational products for school and families and allege dire impacts and irreparable harm to their businesses and customers³.
• Oregon, et al. v. Trump (CIT Apr. 23, 2025) – Plaintiffs are 12 states through their respective attorneys general (Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont), which allege that U.S. national trade policy now “hinges on the President’s whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority” which “upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy”⁴.

What legal claims do the lawsuits allege?

The complaints allege that President Trump’s imposition of tariffs is unconstitutional and exceeds his authority. Specifically, the complaints variably claim that invoking the Act bypassed the typical statutory scheme and sidestepped Congress altogether. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce, impose tariffs, and collect taxes. Congress has then historically enacted laws permitting the President to adjust tariffs in limited circumstances, but the IEEPA was not one of those. The Act permits a president to invoke emergency economic powers after declaring a national emergency and in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats” to national security, foreign policy, or the U.S. economy, which originate outside of the U.S. But the Act does not expressly contemplate tariffs, nor has it ever been used to implement tariffs before.

What relief do the plaintiffs seek?

The lawsuits seek declaratory relief in the form of declarations that the tariff orders are unconstitutional and injunctive relief to preliminarily—and ultimately permanently—prohibit their implementation.

Will the lawsuits succeed?

It is too soon to tell. Many legal commentators have opined that the claims have legal merit insofar as the Act on its face does not authorize the President’s actions, congressional authority appears to have been arrogated, and recent U.S. Supreme Court legal doctrine supports plaintiffs’ claims. But these are cases of first impression involving a novel legal issue (analysis of tariffs imposed under the Act), so the outcome is uncertain. Further complicating the analysis is how—assuming at least one of these legal suits reaches the U.S. Supreme Court—this Court will rule and whether it might seek to curtail (or expand) presidential power.

On April 22, 2025, the Court of International Trade denied plaintiff V.O.S. Selection’s motion for a preliminary injunction on grounds it had not clearly shown a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the court considers and rules on the underlying motion for permanent restraints.

What happens next?

The lawsuits are pending in federal trial courts. None of them has reached a final determination. A non-prevailing party can appeal a final determination to one of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, after which an appeal can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We will continue to monitor and provide updates on legal developments in respect of the U.S. tariffs.

 
Read more Tariffs and trade briefs.