Small Importer Files Amicus at CAFC in Support of IEEPA Tariffs Lawsuit
Importer Crutchfield filed an amicus brief on June 26 in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Crutchfield argued that President Donald Trump's claim that IEEPA grants the president "unilateral and unreviewable authority to impose, increase, decrease, suspend, or alter tariffs on virtually every country in the world" can't be squared with the statute's plain language and the U.S. Constitution (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Last month, the Court of International Trade issued its decision vacating the executive orders implementing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to combat the flow of fentanyl under IEEPA (see 2505280068).
CIT didn't say IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs, though the court said IEEPA doesn't allow for tariffs to address balance-of-payments issues in light of the specific authority to address these issues under Section 122, and that the fentanyl tariffs don't "deal with" the declared emergency, since IEEPA can't be used to create leverage over another country to address a problem.
Filing an amicus brief in support of the importers and U.S. states challenging the tariffs, Crutchfield, represented by Maine-based boutique firm Brann & Isaacson, said it doesn't "presume to improve upon the lengthy, careful, analysis of the court below." Instead, the company said it merely seeks to argue that it's a "simple straight line from the plain language of the IEEPA and the Constitution to the conclusion that the IEEPA did not and could not delegate such authority to the President."
Crutchfield itself is a Virginia-based, family-owned business that sells consumer electronics. The company said it sources many of its products from overseas, since many of them are only available overseas. "Pauses to announced tariffs of uncertain length and the threat of additional tariffs of unknown size likewise paralyzes Crutchfield’s ability to make rational business decisions," the importer said.
In its brief, Crutchfield said the government doesn't claim that IEEPA's plain language grants the president the "previously-overlooked power to impose trillions of dollars in tariffs." Instead, the U.S. takes a "long and winding road in which a predecessor court interpreting a different statute 50 years ago under different circumstances and under different Supreme Court precedent concluded that President Nixon had authority to impose temporary tariffs under the Trading With the Enemy Act."
Even if that court, in Yoshida International v. U.S., "faithfully applied the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation tools in 1975 to interpret the TWEA, those results cannot be teleported by this Court in 2025 to interpret the IEEPA," the brief said.
In addition, Crutchfield argued that the major questions and non-delegation doctrines bar Trump's use of IEEPA in this way. The importer said the "statutory language relied upon" by the government, which lets the president "regulate ... importation," provides "no discernible standard on anything to do with tariffs." The sporadic way IEEPA has been used this year alone supports the claim that IEEPA "is standardless," the importer argued.