The Supreme Court struck down IEEPA tariffs on February 20 in Learning Resources v. Trump, invalidating duties that compliance systems have been tracking since early 2025. For engineering teams serving HTS and tariff data, the ruling triggers an immediate question: which executive orders are now void, and which tariff line caches require invalidation?
A Bloomberg Law analysis identified 10 federal lawsuits challenging IEEPA tariffs, with plaintiffs citing 17 different executive orders across these cases. The breakdown by tariff type: six challenged EOs related to China tariffs, four to global tariffs, three to Canada tariffs, and three to Mexico tariffs. Nine of the 10 lawsuits cited multiple tariff EOs simultaneously, with one plaintiff naming 13 separate orders in a single complaint.
• China tariffs: 6 EOs challenged
• Global tariffs: 4 EOs challenged
• Canada tariffs: 3 EOs challenged
• Mexico tariffs: 3 EOs challenged
Court Venue Distribution
The litigation spread across multiple federal venues, complicating jurisdictional tracking. Three cases were filed in the US Court of International Trade, the standard venue for tariff disputes. Two cases landed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The remaining five cases scattered across federal district courts: Northern District of Florida, Western District of Texas, Northern District of California, District of Rhode Island, and District of Montana.
The federal government attempted venue transfers to CIT in several non-CIT cases. Transfer motions succeeded in Emily Ley Paper Inc. v. Trump and Webber v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., but failed in Cal. v. Trump and Learning Resources. In Smirk & Dagger Games v. Trump, plaintiffs themselves requested the CIT transfer.
Filing Speed Data
Plaintiffs moved quickly against IEEPA tariffs. Half of the 10 lawsuits were filed less than two weeks after the president signed the latest executive order cited in each complaint. The fastest filing: V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al v. United States of America, submitted just five days after the most recent EO it challenged.
Plaintiff Categories and Consolidation Path
Two cases were filed by states: one by a coalition of 12 Democratic-led states, another by California and Governor Gavin Newsom. The remaining plaintiffs included businesses selling various goods, nonprofit organizations, and tribal members in Montana.
The Supreme Court case consolidated Learning Resources with V.O.S. Selections. The Learning Resources plaintiffs—Illinois-based companies Learning Resources and hand2mind Inc.—filed April 22 challenging EOs 14195, 14228, 14257, 14259, and 14266, covering China and global tariffs. The DC district court denied the administration's transfer motion and granted a preliminary injunction, ruling IEEPA did not authorize presidential tariff authority.
Implications for Tariff Data Systems
Engineering teams maintaining HTS rate caches should audit entries tied to the 17 challenged executive orders. China tariff codes require priority review given six EOs in that category. Systems returning duty rates for Canadian and Mexican goods must account for three invalidated EOs each. Global tariff calculations referencing the four challenged EOs need immediate re-verification against post-ruling CBP guidance.
For API access to current US HTS and Canadian Customs Tariff data reflecting post-Learning Resources rate structures, contact us at /contact.html for a free 30-day trial.