On May 29, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued two historic rulings in the case of Learning Resources, Inc., et al., vs. Donald Trump, et al. First, it ruled that the Court of International Trade (CIT) lacks jurisdiction to hear cases involving the President’s use of tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Second, the District Court determined that the President cannot unilaterally “impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy” under the IEEPA, as only Congress can define the scope of Presidential tariff authority.
Earlier in 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders invoking the IEEPA to impose “reciprocal” and “fentanyl” tariffs. In response to those executive orders, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the government from collecting these tariffs from the parties involved in this particular case. However, the injunction does not prevent the government from collecting tariffs from other importers and businesses. The injunction will remain in effect for 14 days, during which the Trump Administration has the right to appeal—an action the administration has reportedly taken.
Given the two rulings and the possibility that two different United States Courts of Appeals could rule differently in similar matters, there might be a conflict within the circuits, as one appeal proceeds through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the CIT decision, and the other through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from the D.C. District Court decision. As such, this potential split would likely escalate the issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
Until the Supreme Court rules, businesses and supply chains should expect the tariffs to remain in place. Uncertainty will remain until we learn of the Supreme Court’s and the two Courts of Appeals’ plans. Meanwhile, tariffs imposed under Section 232 (such as those on steel, aluminum, and autos) and Section 301 (targeting specific Chinese goods) remain unchallenged and will continue to apply.
