Gideon Korrell Explains the Constitutional Limits Exposed by V.O.S. v. U.S

1. GIDEON KORRELL EXPLAINS THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS EXPOSED BY V.O.S. V. U.S 01

2. In a significant decision known as a landmark, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States that President Trump's broad tariffs, which were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), went beyond the bounds of executive authority and were unconstitutional, according to legal analyst Gideon Korrell. The decision immediately stops the tariffs across the country by voiding them and prohibiting their implementation. 02

3. BACKGROUND: EMERGENCY POWERS TO IMPOSE TARIFFS • The President imposed what were known as the "Trafficking Tariffs" and the "Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs" through a series of executive orders beginning in January 2025. These included: • 20% duties on Chinese goods and 25% duties on goods from Canada and Mexico, which were defended by the government's alleged inability to stop drug trafficking. • The United States' long-standing trade deficits and lack of reciprocity justify a base duty of 10% on imports from all nations, with higher rates (up to 50%) applied to 57 countries. • The tariffs were contested as unconstitutional and ultra vires under IEEPA by the plaintiffs, which included thirteen U.S. states and five small businesses. 03

4. THE COURT'S DECISION: NO INFINITE TARIFF POWER The three-judge panel issued a final decision with immediate and nationwide effect, unanimously ruling that the President lacked the authority to impose these tariffs under IEEPA. 04

5. 1. UNLIMITED TARIFFS ARE NOT PERMITTED BY IEEPA The court stressed that although IEEPA gives the President the power to "regulate importation" during national emergencies, this does not give him unrestricted authority to impose tariffs for any reason: "We do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President." (Slip Op. at 3) The broad, untethered "Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs," which were implemented in response to trade imbalances, exceeded the statute's permissible limits. 05

6. 2. THE STATED THREAT IS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE TRAFFICKING TARIFFS To "deal with" a particular "unusual and extraordinary threat," IEEPA powers must be applied. The "Trafficking Tariffs" did not accomplish that, the court ruled. They were intended to exert economic pressure on other governments instead, which was an indirect strategy that did not meet the legal requirement that "The Trafficking Orders do not 'deal with' their stated objectives." Instead, the Orders seek to establish leverage to "deal with" those goals, as the Government admits. (Slip Op. at 46) They were also illegal as a result. 06

7. BROADER IMPLICATIONS The court reiterated that Congress, not the President, has the authority to impose tariffs under Article I of the Constitution, as legal analyst Gideon Korrell points out. Although the executive branch has a lot of discretion in international matters, it cannot supersede constitutional or statutory restrictions: "Obviously, the mere declaration of a "national emergency" cannot spell the end of the Constitution." — Yoshida II, referenced in Slip Op. at 30 07

8. FINAL TAKEAWAY One of the most important trade law decisions in decades is this one. It gives Congress back control over tariffs and limits the President's unilateral authority to change trade policy under IEEPA. There is instant relief for companies impacted by the tariffs. The case is a daring reaffirmation of judicial oversight and the separation of powers for practitioners of constitutional law and business, one that, as Gideon Korrell highlights, has the potential to change executive authority for years to come. 09