(Medium)—On Tuesday, May 13, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade will hear a high-stakes lawsuit challenging President Trump’s controversial tariffs — or, at the very least, seeking to pause them.
Filed on April 14, 2025, by the Liberty Justice Center, the lawsuit represents five owner-operated businesses — VOS Selections, FISHUSA, Genova Pipe, MicroKits LLC, and Terry Precision Cycling — that claim to have suffered severe harm from these tariffs. According to the plaintiffs, the case highlights “the human and economic toll of unchecked executive power,” questioning the legality of the president’s sweeping trade measures.
At the heart of the case is a fundamental legal challenge: the plaintiffs argue that Trump’s tariffs lack a legitimate national emergency basis as required by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In their complaint, they state, “The President has not identified a valid national emergency… and the continued existence of trade deficits in goods is not in and of itself a national emergency.” They further argue that if Congress has indeed granted the president unilateral authority to impose tariffs at will, it amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of power.
Before diving deeper into the legal and economic stakes of this case, it’s important to understand what “Liberation Day” was meant to achieve — and how its consequences have sparked this critical legal battle.
Liberation Day
On April 2, President Donald Trump declared what he called “Liberation Day,” unveiling a sweeping set of reciprocal tariffs on nearly every nation — a move that upended long-standing trade norms and sent shockwaves through the global economy. “April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed, and the day we began to make America wealthy again,” Trump declared in a fiery speech broadcast by ABC News. He further claimed that “for decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.”
The Trump administration framed these tariffs as a means to counter the trade barriers that other countries had imposed on U.S. goods and to reduce America’s trade deficits. According to the executive order, “Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; inhibited our ability to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.” This was, in Trump’s view, a necessary step to restore American economic strength.
But critics quickly labeled the tariffs reckless and economically dangerous. Many warned of retaliatory tariffs from other nations and the risk of U.S. isolation from global markets. CNN reporter Stephen Collinson emphasized that “Trump refuses to accept the economic consensus that tariffs cause higher prices because importers pass the costs of extra duties on to consumers.” This, he noted, is especially concerning as American voters continue to struggle with high costs for essential goods in the wake of the pandemic.
Ultimately, the tariffs have become a polarizing issue. Supporters see them as a bold stand against unfair trade practices, while opponents view them as a threat to economic stability. For companies like V.O.S. Selections, which are now challenging these tariffs in court, the stakes are clear: survival in a rapidly shifting economic landscape.
The Legal Battle
Now, the fate of Liberation Day hangs in the balance as the U.S. Court of International Trade prepares to hear V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump — a case that could redefine the limits of presidential power over trade. Filed by the Liberty Justice Center, the lawsuit represents five small businesses — V.O.S. Selections, FISHUSA, Genova Pipe, MicroKits LLC, and Terry Precision Cycling — that claim severe economic harm from the sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump.
The plaintiffs argue that these tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), are illegal because they lack a valid national emergency. While Trump cited the U.S. trade deficit as a crisis, the businesses argue that a trade imbalance is not an emergency and that using IEEPA for this purpose is an abuse of executive power. They further claim that if IEEPA allows this, it would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s authority.
At the heart of this case is one question: can a president impose sweeping economic measures without congressional approval? The plaintiffs lean on the Major Questions Doctrine, arguing that major policies with vast economic impact require clear legislative backing. Their position is clear: without a true emergency, Trump’s tariffs represent unchecked executive power.
If the court sides with them, it could set a precedent limiting presidential authority over trade. But if Trump’s tariffs are upheld, it may empower future presidents to use emergency powers to reshape economic policy at will. The stakes are high, not just for the plaintiffs, but for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.