Following a busy week in trade, with numerous US court decisions over the past days, businesses may be left wondering as the week wraps up: where does the recent flurry of decisions leave us?

Where things stand

• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs remain in effect:  As described in our earlier blog post, the Court of International Trade (CIT) order to rescind the tariffs within 10 days has been “stayed”, meaning that at least for now, the tariffs remain in effect while the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) considers the US Government’s motion for a stay of the CIT’s order. Similarly, the District Court for the District of Columbia (DDC) stayed its decision for 14 days on the preliminary injunction sought by two individual importers, pending a decision on an anticipated appeal to the DC Circuit by the US Government. This includes broadly three categories of tariffs:
  • China: Currently a 20% duty applies specifically to imports from China (but as set out below, an additional 10% duty applies to all non-US goods, including Chinese goods). Higher rates on Chinese goods were paused for 90 days by Executive Order 14298 of May 12 (i.e., until August 12).  The de minimis exemption for low-value imports under 19 USC 1321 was rescinded for products of China under this order, with formal entry and additional tariffs and fees owed for low-value products of China.
  • Mexico and Canada: Tariff rates for Mexican and Canadian products are set at 25%. Canadian energy products are subject to a lower 10% rate.  USMCA-originating articles continue to be eligible to be imported into the United States duty-free.
  • Worldwide (including China): The so-called “Liberation Day tariffs” issued under Executive Order 14257 remain in effect. These impose a 10% duty on all trading partners, with higher rates (up to 57%) applying to certain countries’ imports. These are accumulative for products of China identified above – Chinese imports are subject to a 30% total tariff.
• This could change:
  • While the IEEPA tariffs remain in force, the situation remains fluid. Further developments in the ongoing litigation may have the effect of suspending or otherwise modifying the tariffs.
  • For example, the CAFC could lift the stay on the CIT’s order to rescind the tariffs. Or the DDC’s injunction, which applies only to the plaintiffs in that case, may be drawn more broadly as the litigation progresses. It is also increasingly likely that the US Supreme Court will need to weigh in, either to impose a stay on the lower court injunctions or to decide the cases on the merits.
  • If the courts do ultimately strike down the tariffs, importers may also be eligible to receive refunds (with interest) on the tariffs they have already paid.
• Stay informed and plan accordingly:
  • Businesses should keep a close eye on these developments as things are changing very quickly.
  • With the tariffs revived, businesses should continue to consider strategies to mitigate the impact of the duties on their operations and finances. For example, they can revisit their supply chain to source good from countries with lower exposure to the tariffs. Businesses can also participate in trade associations that advocate for trade policy changes. Importers can also work with counsel to design and implement tailored strategies to help them mitigate the negative effects of the tariffs on their business.

Refresher on how we got here

• On April 2, President Trump issued Executive Order 14257, invoking the IEEPA to impose a tariff package he deemed the “Liberation Day tariffs”. The Executive Order argued that “a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption…constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.” The tariffs applied a 10% duty on all US trading partners with higher rates ranging from 11% to 50% applying to imports from 57 countries. The Liberation Day tariffs followed the imposition of tariffs targeting China, Mexico and Canada via February and March executive orders, also invoking the IEEPA. The IEEPA itself has never before been used to impose tariffs (although its predecessor statute, the Trading with the Enemy Act, was used by President Nixon to impose tariffs in 1971.)
• On April 9, the President issued Executive Order 14266 pausing the implementation of the new tariffs to July 9, for all countries except China (whose rate was increased to 84% on April 8, 2025, and then 125% on April 10, 2025). On May 12, President Trump also set the base tariff rate for China at 10%, pausing a 125% retaliatory tariff, effective until August 12.
• On April 14, a group of importers filed a complaint with the CIT, challenging the President’s authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs. The following week, a coalition of US states brought a similar action in the same court. In both cases, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.
• On May 28, a three-judge CIT panel unanimously granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in both the importer and state cases, finding that the IEEPA did not grant the President the broad authority to impose the tariffs at issue. The CIT also permanently enjoined the US Government from enforcing the tariffs. The US Government appealed the decision to the CAFC on the same day.
• The following day, on May 29, the CAFC issued an immediate administrative stay until further notice while the court considers the appeal. The CAFC also consolidated the appeals of the importer and US state cases so they will be considered together. The importer and US state plaintiffs are to file responses by June 5, with the US Government replies due by June 9. Given the profile and urgency of the appeal — especially if the stay is not granted, and the IEEPA tariffs are enjoined — it is expected that the appeals process would be expedited, although the exact timeline is hard to predict at this time.
• Also on May 29, the DDC, ruled in a parallel case involving two small exporters’ challenge to the IEEPA tariffs. The DDC went further than the CIT, finding that the IEEPA confers no authority on the President to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs. The DDC accordingly permanently enjoined the US Government from enforcing the tariffs as to the two importer plaintiffs. The court stayed the injunction for 14 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. As of the time of writing the US Government had not yet appealed the DDC decision.