Page history

BeforeThe case originated from executive orders issued on February 2, 2025, imposing tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Trump declared national emergencies citing illegal drug influx and trade deficits, invoking IEEPA authority to impose the tariffs. Learning Resources and hand2mind, two educational toy companies importing goods from China, challenged the orders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A companion case, *V.O.S. Selections v. United States*, was brought by five small businesses and twelve states in the Court of International Trade.

AfterThe case originated from executive orders issued in February 2025 imposing tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Trump declared national emergencies citing illegal drug influx and trade deficits, invoking IEEPA authority to impose the tariffs. Learning Resources and hand2mind, two educational toy companies importing goods from China, challenged the orders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A companion case, *V.O.S. Selections v. United States*, was brought by five small businesses and twelve states in the Court of International Trade.

BeforeThe ruling invalidated tariffs estimated by Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists at $175 billion to $179 billion in collections. It did not affect tariffs imposed under other authorities, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which cover steel, aluminum, copper, automobiles, auto parts, lumber, semiconductors, and other goods. The Court did not address whether importers who had already paid the invalidated tariffs were entitled to refunds.

AfterEstimates published after the ruling put the invalidated collections at roughly $175 billion. It did not affect tariffs imposed under other authorities, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which cover steel, aluminum, copper, automobiles, auto parts, lumber, semiconductors, and other goods. The Court did not address whether importers who had already paid the invalidated tariffs were entitled to refunds.