by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit today issued a detailed scheduling order expedited resolution of the constitutional challenge to President Trump’s global tariff program. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 2025-1812, 2025-1813 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2025). The per curiam order, issued by all participating active judges sitting en banc (excluding Judge Newman), establishes a six-week briefing schedule culminating in oral arguments on July 31, 2025—less than two months after the Court of International Trade’s permanent injunction against the tariffs. The court allocated 45 minutes per side for oral argument, double the typical time, signaling recognition of the case’s exceptional constitutional significance.
The case consolidates two separate CIT cases – one filed by commercial actors led by V.O.S. and the other led by the State of Oregon. The scheduling order explicitly authorized separate response briefs for the two plaintiff groups, rather than requiring coordination. The order also permits amicus participation by waiving the usual consent and leave requirements — there will likely be extensive third-party briefing.
Although the CIT issued a permanent injunction against President Trump’s tariffs, earlier this week the Federal Circuit issued an emergency stay pending resolution of the appeal. This means that the White House can move forward with its tariffs.
Timeline for the appeal:
- Opening brief by US and any supporting amici: June 24.*
- Responsive briefs by V.O.S. and Oregon and any supporting Amici: July 8.
- Reply: July 18.
- Full Appendix: July 23.
The court will maintain its en banc posture throughout — indicating that this is a case requiring institutional-level consideration regarding the scope of Presidential tariff-setting emergency powers.
The procedural posture creates an unusual situation for amici because the full scope of the government’s appeal remains undefined. While the emergency stay briefing focused somewhat on the likelihood of success on the merits, the government’s opening merits brief is not constrained by those preliminary arguments. The Federal Circuit has imposed no limits on the legal theories or constitutional arguments that parties may raise, meaning the government could potentially challenge the Court of International Trade’s reasoning on entirely different grounds than those presented in its stay motion. Similarly, the court’s broad invitation and parallel timeline for amicus participation, without specifying subject-matter restrictions, suggests that the briefing may encompass far-reaching questions about the separation of powers, the scope of congressional delegation under IEEPA, and the constitutional limits on presidential emergency authorities.
There is a strong likelihood that this case will move on to the Supreme Court next term — especially of the Federal Circuit ultimately affirms the CIT’s findings that President Trump’s actions were unconstitutional.
Parties that previously filed briefs regarding the stay of injunction:
- U.S. Government Appellant (DOJ attorneys Daniel Winik, Brad Hinshelwood, Michael Raab, Sophia Shams)
- Commercial Appellees, including V.O.S., FishUSA, MicroKits, etc. (Jeffrey Schwab, Bridet Conlan, Reilly Stephens all from Liberty Justice Center)
- State Appellees, including Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Vermont (Benjamin Gutman, Christopher Perdue, Dustin Buehler, Leigh Salmon, etc).
- Amicus Supporting the Government: America First Legal Foundation & Coalition for a Prosperous America (Trent McCotter, Daniel Epstein).
- Amicus Challenging the Tariffs:
- Crutchfield Crop (Peter Brann, David Swetnam-Burland)
- NYU Law Institute for Policy Integrity (Max Sarinsky, Donald Goodson, Kelly McGee, Richard Revesz)
- Former Government Officials and Legal Scholars (Attorneys Matthew Seligman, Mark Lemley, Stephen Jonas)
- 33 Democratic Senators, including Angela Alsobrooks, Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal (Attorneys Fred Norton, Nathan Walker, etc.).
= = =
* I believe the court’s statement that amicus briefs must be filed “on the same day as the principal brief of the party the amicus brief supports” should be read as requiring amicus briefs to be filed by the stated deadlines. The order also does not specify a deadline for amicus briefs supporting neither party. Under the typical rule of Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(6), such briefs would be due no later than seven days after the appellant’s principal brief. However, I believe the court in this case would expect these to be filed as of the same deadline for briefs supporting the government. If you are in this situation, contact the clerk’s office for clarification.