By Jill Hurley and Tony Troia
Most individuals who practice law will tell you that being a lawyer isn’t nearly as glamorous or dramatic as depicted in popular culture. Much of the legal profession is made up of reviewing and compiling massive legal documents and attending hearings that delve into the minutiae of jurisprudence. It’s extremely esoteric stuff. But it matters.
It matters because it affects real people. People like those who operate the businesses we support every day. Businesses that are trying to be compliant; to follow the rules while keeping costs down and planning ahead to mitigate expense and reduce risk, and do so legally and strategically. And it affects people like us who want to help those businesses do just that—plan ahead.
IEEPA isn’t just an acronym
On July 30, 2025, we had the opportunity to attend in person the oral arguments in Washington D.C. for the appeal regarding the legality of using IEEPA to impose tariffs. If that acronym is unfamiliar and your instinct is to move on to something else, I encourage you to take the time to continue reading. If you’re a business that relies on products and/or components from outside the United States, this affects you directly. IEEPA or the International Economic Emergencies Act isn’t just an acronym or a boring legal statute. It means much more than that.
As trade consultants whose job it is to provide guidance to businesses on how to navigate trade compliance, and to advocate on their behalf to customs agencies, we felt compelled to attend the hearing in person. We didn’t just want to hear the arguments being made. We wanted to see the people involved; the physical reaction of the judges; the mood in the room. We wanted to be immersive, present; to experience it first hand, because it affects the clients we help every day. It affects them not just because it forces them to incur costs in the form of customs duties, but because it ultimately changes how they can plan ahead and strategize as a business.
So many statutes
While at the hearing, one of the judges, questioned the Department of Justice as to why it’s necessary for the U.S. administration to use IEEPA to impose tariffs when so many other legal statutes—including those previously and currently used by the administration—are available for precisely this purpose.
That question is what the legality of using IEEPA to impose tariffs is really about. Of course, businesses don’t want to have to pay customs duties associated with new tariffs. But the fate of the IEEPA tariffs is about much more than that. It’s about whether trade law can be built up and/or torn down in a day without the due process that typically precedes such actions.
In 2018, when the first Trump administration imposed tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to punish China for unfair trade practices, it did so using traditional due process. An investigation was conducted into the impact of then alleged unfair trade practices. A report from the investigation was released publicly to provide justification for proposed tariffs. A consultation period with industry was established and conducted before any decision to impose tariffs was made, and the feedback from that consultation was take into account. And finally, a grace period was provided to businesses before the tariffs were put into effect so that impacted enterprises could adjust their supply chains and operations to this new normal.
No time to think
We know businesses made good use of that grace period, because we were right there beside them helping them figure out how to navigate that new normal.
Even after the Section 301 tariffs were implemented, we successfully helped many businesses file for exemptions. We could do that, because the exemption-filing process was built into the legal statute. We knew the rules. We knew the spectrum of opportunities, possibilities and limitations. They were clearly set out.
Because IEEPA is meant to address emergencies, that due process is discarded in favor of quick action. That’s why a 25% tariff could be imposed against all imports from Canada (with the exception of energy and potash) and then, just a few days later, applied only to those imports not compliant with the USMCA. It’s why reciprocal tariffs could be theatrically announced one day and then dramatically scaled back just 24 hours after implementation. More recently, it’s why the government could remove duty exemption on low-value goods effective 2027 in its One Big Beautiful Bill, which recently passed Congress, and then choose to remove the duty exemption with only four weeks’ notice instead through IEEPA, as it did on July 30, 2025. No investigation. No opportunity for feedback. No requirement for a grace period.
It’s not about whether tariffs are good or bad, right or wrong
The topic of trade policy can be contentious, even polarizing. There are some businesses that are unduly affected by the imposition of tariffs, but support the policy anyway for a variety of reasons. Similarly, there are businesses who stand to benefit from tariffs but oppose them. Whether or not one is in favor of or opposed to tariffs is immaterial. Tariffs are a reality of engaging in trade. Importers and exporters recognize this. But trade laws exist so that those engaged in global trade understand the rules of the game. They understand what is and is not compliant. They can take the time they need, using internal and external parties, to make strategic choices based on a solid, predictable trade landscape (even when that landscape is unfavorable). Should the federal court rule in favor of the government, that predictability and opportunity for planning will be forever replaced by the uncertainty and volatility that has characterized the trade landscape in the U.S. and globally over the past six months.
Now what?
The resulting ruling in response to the briefs and oral arguments presented on July 31 related to the lawfulness of using IEEPA to implement tariffs won’t be known for at least a couple of weeks (maybe more). Whatever the ruling, it’s safe to predict the losing side will launch an appeal with the Supreme Court, which will then make a final ruling on the matter. That could be a matter of weeks or months. In the interim, trade policy will continue to be governed primarily (though not exclusively) by sudden actions, creating a sense of uncertainty for businesses that want to play by the rules, but struggle to keep pace with rules that keep changing.
We will continue to keep our ear to the ground and be present (when possible) where and when legal proceedings impacting trade take place. Not because it’s exciting. But because it matters.
Jill Hurley is Senior Director, Global Trade Consulting at Livingston, and a licensed attorney specializing in trade. As the practice leader, she spearheads U.S. import and export projects, offering comprehensive reviews of clients’ business models for risk assessment, crafting, and implementing import/export compliance programs, conducting audits, navigating export licensing requirements, and providing support in U.S. trade remedy matters.
Tony Troia is senior consultant, Global Trade Consulting at Livingston, as well as a licensed attorney specializing in trade, and a U.S. customs broker with over 30 years of experience in customs matters. He is actively engaged in discovering duty savings opportunities, conducting compliance activities including import/export compliance assessments, first sale valuation determinations, voluntary disclosures, penalty mitigation/cancellation activities and numerous Customs and other government agency projects on behalf of Livingston International’s clients.