By News Editor 
The ability for a president to impose taxes at ports of entry e.g. tariffs, has been struck down by a federal appeals court after a lower federal court had blocked key provisions in the president’s unilateral tariff schemes.
Limit On Presidential Powers – Tariff Scope
On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that two sets of unilateral tariffs—the “Reciprocal Tariffs” and the “Trafficking Tariffs”—exceeded the authority Congress delegated to the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court left in place the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) declaratory judgment that the executive orders were “invalid as contrary to law,” but it vacated the CIT’s universal permanent injunction and remanded for the CIT to reconsider the need and scope of any injunctive relief under eBay and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent guidance in Trump v. CASA.
The Federal Circuit emphasized that IEEPA’s operative grant—authority to “regulate … importation” via “instructions, licenses, or otherwise”—does not clearly authorize the imposition of tariffs. Congress knows how to delegate tariff power and typically does so with explicit terms like “duties,” “tariff,” or “surcharge” in trade statutes such as §338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, §122 and §201 of the Trade Act of 1974, and §301. IEEPA contains no such language, which the court treated as a telling omission.
The majority also invoked the major questions doctrine. No President has previously used IEEPA to levy broad tariffs; the novelty and sweeping economic impact made the government’s position an “unheralded” and “transformative” assertion of power requiring a clear statement from Congress—one the court did not find in IEEPA. The government even conceded IEEPA imposes no cap on tariff rates, underscoring the breadth claimed.
As to history, the government’s reliance on Yoshida II (interpreting TWEA) did not save the orders. Even accepting that “regulate importation” could include some tariffs, the court held these orders were “unbounded in scope, amount, and duration,” sweeping across almost all products and (for reciprocals) almost all countries—beyond any limits Yoshida understood.
The court further reasoned that reading IEEPA to permit open-ended tax raising would present serious nondelegation concerns because taxation is a core Article I function. Under the government’s interpretation, once an emergency is declared, the executive could set whatever tariff rates it wishes, a “functionally limitless delegation” the majority declined to infer from IEEPA’s general words.
Jurisdictionally, the Federal Circuit confirmed the CIT’s exclusive §1581(i) jurisdiction because the challenged orders purported to modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) and thus “arise out of” law “providing for … tariffs.” This also distinguishes a contrary district court decision the opinion criticized.
While affirming illegality and declaratory relief, the Federal Circuit vacated the universal injunction and remanded for the CIT to re-apply the four eBay factors and to reassess nationwide scope under CASA’s limits on universal injunctions. The panel expressly did not hold that any narrower relief would violate the Constitution’s Uniformity Clause; that, too, is for the CIT to reconsider on remand.
The court was careful to say it was not deciding whether IEEPA can ever authorize tariffs; it held only that these particular executive orders were not authorized. Thus, the declaratory invalidation stands now, but the breadth and mechanics of any injunction remain for the CIT to revisit.
There was a dissenting opinion, the 4 of 11 judges who disagreed with the majority ruling, spoke through Judge Taranto (joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Chen) would have reversed, arguing that IEEPA’s text and history permit tariffs, that §122 doesn’t displace IEEPA, and that neither the major questions doctrine nor nondelegation bars the measures.
Bottom line: the Federal Circuit curbed unilateral tariff-imposing power under IEEPA absent an explicit congressional grant, affirming invalidity of the orders while sending the injunction back for tailoring.