Leticia James Scores Another Stunning Victory Over Trump

Another day, another Trump defeat

On May 28, 2025, the United States Court of International Trade delivered a unanimous decision invalidating the Trump administration's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

This victory comes in the wake of James' February 2024 landmark $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump and the Trump Organization, where she successfully proved years of financial deception and secured a three-year ban on Trump from serving as an officer of any New York company.

The ruling strikes down duties that, at their peak, added as much as 145 percent to the cost of imports from China and imposed a baseline 10 percent tariff on goods from nearly every trading partner.

At the center of this legal victory is New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office led a coalition of 12 state attorneys general and five small businesses.

James has established herself as a formidable legal opponent to Trump, having previously won the dissolution of his charitable foundation, secured contempt of court rulings, and successfully blocked numerous attempts to dismantle federal agencies.

This ruling marks the latest in a series of courtroom triumphs for AG James, reaffirming limits on executive power and protecting American families, farmers, manufacturers, and retailers from what the court called "ultra vires" acts.

Within minutes of the opinion's release, U.S. equity futures jumped more than two percent, underscoring the decision's immediate economic impact.

Landmark Decision Blocks Trump’s Worldwide Tariffs

In V.O.S. Selections v. Trump and State of Oregon v. Trump, a three-judge panel—Judges Gary S. Katzmann, Timothy M. Reif, and Jane A. Restani—granted summary judgment for plaintiffs.

They held that the text of IEEPA, statutes explicitly authorizing tailored tariffs, and the Constitution’s separation of powers preclude any President from unilaterally imposing ad valorem duties worldwide.

The court found that Congress has—and expects to—legislate tariff policy through Title 19 of the U.S. Code, not by vesting “unlimited” authority in the executive.

It rejected the argument that the power to “regulate … importation” in IEEPA implicitly grants a President carte blanche to tax imports, noting that Congress has repeatedly authorized narrower, specific tariff tools elsewhere.

25 66

697KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

James Leads Broad Coalition of States and Businesses

Attorney General James brought this suit on behalf of New York and 11 other states—Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont—joined by five small businesses:

• V.O.S. Selections, Inc. (wine importer)

• Plastic Services & Products (pipe manufacturer)

• MicroKits (educational electronics)

• FishUSA (sport-fishing retailer)

• Terry Precision Cycling (women’s apparel)

Their 117-page complaint argued that 117 congressional delegations of tariff authority exist elsewhere in the U.S. Code but that none authorize the President to impose broad, across-the-board duties under IEEPA.

The coalition warned of higher consumer prices, lost jobs, and threatened closures of long-standing family businesses if the tariffs were allowed to continue.

James Hails Major Win for Working Families

After the ruling, AG James released a statement underscoring the decision’s real-world impact on American households and small business owners:

“The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like.

These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families and American businesses that would have led to more inflation, economic damage to businesses of all sizes, and job losses across the country if allowed to continue.

This decision is a major victory for our efforts to uphold the law and protect New Yorkers from illegal policies that threaten American jobs and economy.”

Court Finds Trump Administration Exceeded the IEEPA’s Authority

The court’s opinion held that:

• IEEPA’s grant to “regulate … importation” does not include authority to levy unlimited ad valorem duties worldwide.

• Congress addressed balance-of-payments emergencies in the Trade Act of 1974, capping surcharges at 15 percent for 150 days—limits the Trump orders ignored.

• Drug-trafficking tariffs bore no direct nexus to the interdiction of opioids, since duty revenues do not intercept shipments or disrupt cartels.

• The Constitution vests Congress, not the President, with the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”

By concluding that the orders were “ultra vires,” the court permanently vacated them and enjoined their enforcement

Markets Rebound as Appeals Begin

Financial markets cheered the decision. Nasdaq 100 futures climbed over 2 percent, the dollar strengthened, and the yen tumbled.

A senior White House spokesman denounced the ruling as “judicial overreach,” while the Justice Department promptly filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Unless that court stays the decision, or the Supreme Court ultimately reverses it, the tariffs will remain permanently blocked.

A Constitutional and Economic Victory

Letitia James’s victory is both constitutional and economic. It reaffirms that the separation of powers endures in times of perceived crisis. It also illustrates the power of state attorneys general acting in concert to hold the federal government to account.

For millions of Americans facing higher grocery bills, endangered family businesses, and rising construction costs, the decision offers immediate relief.

As the court recognized, the President’s sweeping tariff orders represented the most significant unilateral tax hike in U.S. history—one that threatened to ratchet up inflation, stall growth, and cost tens of thousands of jobs.

With this ruling, AG James has delivered another stunning victory not just for New York but for the rule of law nationwide.

Support fearless, independent journalism that gets into “good trouble, necessary trouble” by holding power accountable through your decision to subscribe.

Stay strong,
Samuel