![Federal Appeals Court Revives Trump-Era Tariffs, Sets Stage for Landmark Showdown on Presidential Trade Powers [READ ORDER]](https://www.jurishour.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/donald-trump.webp)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has granted the federal government’s request to stay two district court injunctions that had blocked the enforcement of certain tariffs imposed by President Donald J. Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The appeals court also took the unusual step of ordering en banc review of the cases—meaning all active judges on the court (except those recused) will hear the matter together, bypassing the usual three-judge panel.
Background: Tariffs, States, and Trade Groups Challenge Executive Action
The consolidated appeals stem from two lawsuits originally brought before the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). One suit was filed by a coalition of trade plaintiffs, including V.O.S. Selections, Inc., Plastic Services and Products, LLC (doing business as Genova Pipe), and other U.S.-based importers. The other suit was filed by a group of state governments including Oregon, New York, Illinois, and others. Both challenged Executive Orders that had imposed tariffs on specific goods under the authority of the IEEPA.
The plaintiffs argued that the use of IEEPA—a statute typically invoked during national emergencies—was an improper and overbroad assertion of presidential authority. The Court of International Trade agreed, issuing injunctions halting the tariffs. The Biden administration, defending the Trump-era policies, promptly appealed and requested an emergency stay of those orders.
Federal Circuit: Stay Granted, En Banc Review Ordered
On June 10, 2025, the full Federal Circuit granted the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The court emphasized that both sides had raised “substantial arguments on the merits,” and cited traditional stay factors established in Nken v. Holder (2009), which include the likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest.
Importantly, the court also cited recent Supreme Court guidance from Trump v. Wilcox (2025) and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (2017), reiterating that interim relief should preserve the status quo while litigation proceeds.
In a notable move, the court announced that it would hear the case en banc under 28 U.S.C. § 46—indicating that it considers the issues presented to be of “exceptional importance.” Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and all active non-recused judges will participate. (Circuit Judge Pauline Newman did not participate, as noted in the order.)
Next Steps: Accelerated Timeline and Oral Arguments in July
Recognizing the high stakes and urgency of the matter, the court has directed the parties to submit a joint proposed expedited briefing schedule within two business days. The goal is to prepare the case for oral argument on July 31, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Washington, D.C.
If the parties cannot agree on a timeline, they are to submit competing proposals for the court to consider. The court also granted all pending motions for amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs concerning the stay—highlighting the broader public and legal interest in the outcome.
Why This Matters
The Federal Circuit’s decision to grant a stay revives, at least temporarily, the challenged tariffs—impacting importers, consumers, and international trade partners. The case also places a national spotlight on the limits of presidential authority under IEEPA, particularly when invoked to shape trade policy rather than address direct national security threats.
If the full court affirms the CIT’s decision, it could curb the scope of executive economic actions based on emergency powers. Conversely, if the stay leads to a reversal, it may strengthen presidential discretion in international trade matters—potentially paving the way for future administrations to use IEEPA with broader latitude.
Read More: President’s Personal Bank Account Can’t Be Freezed For Club’s Tax Liability: Madras High Court
