VCIL Legal Business News – Client Alert

4 September 2025

Photo Illustration by Victoria Sunday/The Daily Beast/Getty Images.

What happened?

On 29 August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit largely affirmed the Court of International Trade (CIT) and held that President Trump wrongfully invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping “global/reciprocal” tariffs. The panel concluded IEEPA does not authorize broad, across-the-board import duties.

What stays in place (for now)?

The court stayed its mandate to allow an expedited Supreme Court appeal, so the affected tariffs remain in force in the interim.

Which tariffs are affected vs. unaffected?

–  Affected (IEEPA-based): the “reciprocal” and “fentanyl-related” tariff measures that rested on IEEPA authority.

–  Unchanged (for now): tariffs grounded in other statutes (e.g., Section 232 steel/aluminum; separately, Section 301 duties) were not at issue in this decision.

What did the court say about blocking the tariffs “for everyone”?

The Federal Circuit vacated the CIT’s universal (nationwide) injunction—relief that would have barred collection for non-parties – and remanded for the CIT to reassess the remedy. On remand, the CIT must:

1. Apply the traditional eBay four-factor test for permanent injunctions (irreparable harm, inadequacy of legal remedies, balance of hardships, public interest); and,
2. Re-evaluate the scope of any injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance cautioning against universal injunctions.

Practically, the CIT will need to decide whether any injunction should protect only the plaintiffs or can extend more broadly—and explain why under the updated standards. The Federal Circuit did not resolve the CIT’s earlier reasoning that narrower relief could raise Uniformity Clause concerns; that question is now for the CIT to revisit.

Why it matters for businesses?

–  Refund exposure/opportunity: If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the Federal Circuit on the merits, importers may pursue duty refunds on IEEPA-based entries. Preserve your rights now.

–  Party-specific relief risk: Until the CIT reworks the remedy, non-party importers should assume there’s no automatic injunction for their entries—despite the merits ruling.

–  Contract pricing clauses: Update tariff pass-through, price-adjustment, and change-in-law provisions to handle rapid legal reversals or re-impositions under other statutes.

–  Customs deadlines: Be disciplined about protests, post-summary corrections, and litigation windows while the stay is in effect.

–  Cross-border planning: Vietnamese and Korean exporters to the U.S. should hedge landed-cost scenarios and plan for policy volatility during the Supreme Court phase.

Immediate action checklist (importers/exporters)

1. Map exposure: identify SKUs/countries hit by IEEPA-based tariffs vs. Section 232/301.
2. Preserve refund rights: file/hold protests and keep entries open where possible.
3. Consider participation: evaluate intervention or parallel actions to be within the zone of any party-specific remedy.
4. Update contracts: include agile tariff-adjustment and change-in-law language.
5. Scenario plan: model outcomes if (a) tariffs are voided, (b) narrowed, (c) re-imposed via other statutes.

How VCIL can help

–  Duty recovery & audit programs for potentially refundable entries.

–  Contract rewrites (ENG/VIE) for tariff volatility.

–  U.S. – VN supply chain strategy under fast-moving trade rules.

This client alert is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For tailored guidance, please contact VCI Legal.