US Says Wisconsin Man Doesn't Have Article 3, Prudential Standing to Challenge Trump Tariffs
Wisconsin man Gary Barnes doesn't have constitutional or prudential standing to challenge the president's right to impose tariffs, the U.S. argued in a March 21 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The government claimed that Barnes failed to "allege a particularized and concrete injury to himself," and instead claimed that "unidentified American consumers more generally" will be harmed by the supposed constitutional violations the president commits when imposing tariffs (Gary Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In addition, the U.S. said that even if constitutional standing could be established, prudential standing principles require dismissal, since importers of record "are best suited to litigate" the validity of tariffs imposed by the president.
Barnes brought his suit last month, arguing pro se that any attempt by the president to levy import duties amounts to an improper delegation of power under the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026). The Wisconsin man highlighted President Donald Trump's recent tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada and said that the duties harm retired individuals, such as himself, who reside on a fixed income, along with low-income individuals who are less equipped to deal with price increases.
To establish standing under Article 3 of the Constitution, a plaintiff must show "that he has suffered an injury in fact," that this injury is "fairly traceable to the challenged conduct" and that the harm can be redressed by the court. In moving to dismiss the case, the U.S. said Barnes falters on all three steps.
The government said the complaint has no allegations that Barnes personally paid any tariffs or that the imposition of tariffs affects him in any particularized manner. "Plaintiff’s allegations about harm to the economy and consumer buying power are insufficient to demonstrate standing because they do not affect plaintiff in a personal way that is different from any other American consumer," the brief said.
The U.S. added that Barnes' alleged injury isn't "fairly traceable to the additional tariffs." While Barnes said tariffs will raise costs for U.S. consumers, the government said in response that "prices are set by independent private actors and informed by multiple, complex market forces." The payment of an additional tariff cannot lead the court to infer that "importers will uniformly pass these costs onto consumers -- let alone onto plaintiff."
Lastly, the government said the complaint doesn't establish an injury that could be redressed by the court, since even if the court were to enjoin all additional tariffs, "the complaint contains insufficient facts from which the Court could reasonably infer what would happen to business prices or the economy more generally in the absence of the tariffs."