FLASH UPDATE - Tariffs Cancellation Stay by Appellate Court
This provides an important update to Jenner’s previous client alert which can be found here.
Last night in an unusual en banc per curiam order, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from the US Court of International Trade (CIT) stayed the CIT’s order invalidating tariffs issued by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order means that the CIT injunction is on hold, and the IEEPA tariffs remain in effect for now, pending resolution of the appeal.[1] The Federal Circuit also set argument on the merits of the government’s appeal for July 31, 2025. This afternoon, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia filed an order instructing parties to file motions within 14 days.
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, meaning every eligible judge on the circuit participated, reviewed the parties’ briefs and several amicus briefs arguing for and against a stay of the CIT decision in V.O.S. v. United States and Oregon v. Trump to halt the implementation of tariffs set under IEEPA authority.[2] In issuing the stay, the Federal Circuit concluded that traditional factors the court considers weighed in favor of a continuing stay. The opinion is very short and contains no explanation to support this conclusion, and it was issued the day after the government filed its reply brief arguing in favor of the stay. The Federal Circuit also stated that given the nature of the case, it would be heard en banc in the first instance as opposed to the usual three judge panel. We expect that the en banc court will rule quickly after the merits hearing, meaning that the earliest a decision would likely be issued sometime in August 2025. That in turn makes it unlikely that these issues will come before the Supreme Court on the merits before the beginning of its next term in October.
In Learning Resources v. Trump, which is pending in the DC Circuit, the court ordered, per curium, that the parties file motions within fourteen days of the Federal Circuit issuing a decision on its motion to stay—that is, 14 days from June 10.[3] The DC Circuit was responding to the parties’ arguments that proceedings should be delayed until resolution of the V.O.S. stay because, due to differences in interpretation of jurisdictional authority in V.O.S. and Learning Resources, the Supreme Court likely will hear and decide the cases together.
As a result of the Federal Circuit’s order, tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, as well as a global 10% tariff, remain in effect and will remain in effect at the very least until July 31, 2025, or until a decision is issued. Even after the Federal Circuit decides the merits of the V.O.S. case, its decision will likely be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, which may continue the stay pending its resolution of the case.
Companies and anyone who imports goods should be aware that the president’s challenged IEEPA tariffs will remain in effect for the present, and likely until August at the least, and should prepare to adjust their trade plans accordingly.
Jenner & Block will continue to monitor these and other cases concerning tariffs under IEEPA and provide updates as appropriate. We also stand ready to assist our clients as they navigate their way through these difficult issues.
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, meaning every eligible judge on the circuit participated, reviewed the parties’ briefs and several amicus briefs arguing for and against a stay of the CIT decision in V.O.S. v. United States and Oregon v. Trump to halt the implementation of tariffs set under IEEPA authority.[2] In issuing the stay, the Federal Circuit concluded that traditional factors the court considers weighed in favor of a continuing stay. The opinion is very short and contains no explanation to support this conclusion, and it was issued the day after the government filed its reply brief arguing in favor of the stay. The Federal Circuit also stated that given the nature of the case, it would be heard en banc in the first instance as opposed to the usual three judge panel. We expect that the en banc court will rule quickly after the merits hearing, meaning that the earliest a decision would likely be issued sometime in August 2025. That in turn makes it unlikely that these issues will come before the Supreme Court on the merits before the beginning of its next term in October.
In Learning Resources v. Trump, which is pending in the DC Circuit, the court ordered, per curium, that the parties file motions within fourteen days of the Federal Circuit issuing a decision on its motion to stay—that is, 14 days from June 10.[3] The DC Circuit was responding to the parties’ arguments that proceedings should be delayed until resolution of the V.O.S. stay because, due to differences in interpretation of jurisdictional authority in V.O.S. and Learning Resources, the Supreme Court likely will hear and decide the cases together.
As a result of the Federal Circuit’s order, tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, as well as a global 10% tariff, remain in effect and will remain in effect at the very least until July 31, 2025, or until a decision is issued. Even after the Federal Circuit decides the merits of the V.O.S. case, its decision will likely be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, which may continue the stay pending its resolution of the case.
Companies and anyone who imports goods should be aware that the president’s challenged IEEPA tariffs will remain in effect for the present, and likely until August at the least, and should prepare to adjust their trade plans accordingly.
Jenner & Block will continue to monitor these and other cases concerning tariffs under IEEPA and provide updates as appropriate. We also stand ready to assist our clients as they navigate their way through these difficult issues.
[1] The executive orders in these two categories that are based on IEEPA authority or that modify previous IEEPA executive orders are 14193, 14194, 14195, 14197, 14198, 14200, 14226, 14227, 14228, 14231, 14232, 14256, 14257, 14259, 14266, 14289, and 14298.
[2] V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 25-1812, (Fed. Cir.); State of Oregon v. Trump, 25-1813, (Fed. Cir.).
[3] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald Trump, 25-5202, (D.C. Cir.). The Learning Resources appeal is pending before the DC Circuit because the plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court for the District of Columbia as opposed to the CIT.
Footnotes
[1] The executive orders in these two categories that are based on IEEPA authority or that modify previous IEEPA executive orders are 14193, 14194, 14195, 14197, 14198, 14200, 14226, 14227, 14228, 14231, 14232, 14256, 14257, 14259, 14266, 14289, and 14298.
[2] V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 25-1812, (Fed. Cir.); State of Oregon v. Trump, 25-1813, (Fed. Cir.).
[3] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald Trump, 25-5202, (D.C. Cir.). The Learning Resources appeal is pending before the DC Circuit because the plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court for the District of Columbia as opposed to the CIT.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
This provides an important update to Jenner’s previous client alert which can be found here.
Last night in an unusual en banc per curiam order, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from the US Court of International Trade (CIT) stayed the CIT’s order invalidating tariffs issued by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order means that the CIT injunction is on hold, and the IEEPA tariffs remain in effect for now, pending resolution of the appeal.[1] The Federal Circuit also set argument on the merits of the government’s appeal for July 31, 2025. This afternoon, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia filed an order instructing parties to file motions within 14 days.
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, meaning every eligible judge on the circuit participated, reviewed the parties’ briefs and several amicus briefs arguing for and against a stay of the CIT decision in V.O.S. v. United States and Oregon v. Trump to halt the implementation of tariffs set under IEEPA authority.[2] In issuing the stay, the Federal Circuit concluded that traditional factors the court considers weighed in favor of a continuing stay. The opinion is very short and contains no explanation to support this conclusion, and it was issued the day after the government filed its reply brief arguing in favor of the stay. The Federal Circuit also stated that given the nature of the case, it would be heard en banc in the first instance as opposed to the usual three judge panel. We expect that the en banc court will rule quickly after the merits hearing, meaning that the earliest a decision would likely be issued sometime in August 2025. That in turn makes it unlikely that these issues will come before the Supreme Court on the merits before the beginning of its next term in October.
In Learning Resources v. Trump, which is pending in the DC Circuit, the court ordered, per curium, that the parties file motions within fourteen days of the Federal Circuit issuing a decision on its motion to stay—that is, 14 days from June 10.[3] The DC Circuit was responding to the parties’ arguments that proceedings should be delayed until resolution of the V.O.S. stay because, due to differences in interpretation of jurisdictional authority in V.O.S. and Learning Resources, the Supreme Court likely will hear and decide the cases together.
As a result of the Federal Circuit’s order, tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, as well as a global 10% tariff, remain in effect and will remain in effect at the very least until July 31, 2025, or until a decision is issued. Even after the Federal Circuit decides the merits of the V.O.S. case, its decision will likely be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, which may continue the stay pending its resolution of the case.
Companies and anyone who imports goods should be aware that the president’s challenged IEEPA tariffs will remain in effect for the present, and likely until August at the least, and should prepare to adjust their trade plans accordingly.
Jenner & Block will continue to monitor these and other cases concerning tariffs under IEEPA and provide updates as appropriate. We also stand ready to assist our clients as they navigate their way through these difficult issues.
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, meaning every eligible judge on the circuit participated, reviewed the parties’ briefs and several amicus briefs arguing for and against a stay of the CIT decision in V.O.S. v. United States and Oregon v. Trump to halt the implementation of tariffs set under IEEPA authority.[2] In issuing the stay, the Federal Circuit concluded that traditional factors the court considers weighed in favor of a continuing stay. The opinion is very short and contains no explanation to support this conclusion, and it was issued the day after the government filed its reply brief arguing in favor of the stay. The Federal Circuit also stated that given the nature of the case, it would be heard en banc in the first instance as opposed to the usual three judge panel. We expect that the en banc court will rule quickly after the merits hearing, meaning that the earliest a decision would likely be issued sometime in August 2025. That in turn makes it unlikely that these issues will come before the Supreme Court on the merits before the beginning of its next term in October.
In Learning Resources v. Trump, which is pending in the DC Circuit, the court ordered, per curium, that the parties file motions within fourteen days of the Federal Circuit issuing a decision on its motion to stay—that is, 14 days from June 10.[3] The DC Circuit was responding to the parties’ arguments that proceedings should be delayed until resolution of the V.O.S. stay because, due to differences in interpretation of jurisdictional authority in V.O.S. and Learning Resources, the Supreme Court likely will hear and decide the cases together.
As a result of the Federal Circuit’s order, tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, as well as a global 10% tariff, remain in effect and will remain in effect at the very least until July 31, 2025, or until a decision is issued. Even after the Federal Circuit decides the merits of the V.O.S. case, its decision will likely be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, which may continue the stay pending its resolution of the case.
Companies and anyone who imports goods should be aware that the president’s challenged IEEPA tariffs will remain in effect for the present, and likely until August at the least, and should prepare to adjust their trade plans accordingly.
Jenner & Block will continue to monitor these and other cases concerning tariffs under IEEPA and provide updates as appropriate. We also stand ready to assist our clients as they navigate their way through these difficult issues.
[1] The executive orders in these two categories that are based on IEEPA authority or that modify previous IEEPA executive orders are 14193, 14194, 14195, 14197, 14198, 14200, 14226, 14227, 14228, 14231, 14232, 14256, 14257, 14259, 14266, 14289, and 14298.
[2] V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 25-1812, (Fed. Cir.); State of Oregon v. Trump, 25-1813, (Fed. Cir.).
[3] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald Trump, 25-5202, (D.C. Cir.). The Learning Resources appeal is pending before the DC Circuit because the plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court for the District of Columbia as opposed to the CIT.
Footnotes
[1] The executive orders in these two categories that are based on IEEPA authority or that modify previous IEEPA executive orders are 14193, 14194, 14195, 14197, 14198, 14200, 14226, 14227, 14228, 14231, 14232, 14256, 14257, 14259, 14266, 14289, and 14298.
[2] V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 25-1812, (Fed. Cir.); State of Oregon v. Trump, 25-1813, (Fed. Cir.).
[3] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald Trump, 25-5202, (D.C. Cir.). The Learning Resources appeal is pending before the DC Circuit because the plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court for the District of Columbia as opposed to the CIT.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026