Libertarian Group Fends Off Bid to Stay IEEPA Case at CIT
The libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation opposed the government's bid to stay its case at the Court of International Trade challenging certain tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently filing a motion for summary judgment and expedited consideration of its case (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
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.
The foundation, suing on behalf of 11 importers, said its case should not be stayed pending resolution of an action brought by 12 U.S. states against all IEEPA tariff action, since a stay would "increase Plaintiffs’ already significant harm"; "'unnecessarily delay" the court's consideration of the foundation's nondelegation argument, which the 12 states have not raised; and potentially bar the importers "entirely from obtaining refunds."
The foundation's lawsuit is one of seven major challenges to President Donald Trump's tariff action and is specifically contesting the reciprocal tariffs and duties on China imposed under IEEPA (see 2504250038). The U.S. recently moved to stay the case pending resolution of a separate IEEPA action led by the State of Oregon (see 2505080046).
In response, the foundation argued that the government would "suffer virtually no hardship and zero inequity by addressing Plaintiffs’ case," while the 11 importers would continue to suffer "significant additional damage." The U.S. has not shown they would suffer "clear hardship" absent a stay, claiming instead that a stay would "foster the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this case."
Citing an antidumping case, the foundation said when similar cases are pending before CIT, the parties can "easily raise the same argument without significant effort, and the court can examine the arguments again without significantly expending resources." The brief noted that, likely for that reason, the U.S. has not indicated they are seeking a stay of the lead case on the issue, V.O.S. Selections v. Donald Trump.
The foundation added that a stay would subject the importers to "both hardship and inequity for four reasons." The reasons are that the companies would suffer "extensive delays in obtaining refunds for tariffs they have paid," the 12 states are not seeking refunds, the 12 states are not making a non-delegation claim, and the U.S. has not agreed to suspend liquidation of the importers' entries.
The brief noted that there are "other ways" the court can more efficiently resolve the four cases before it on the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, including by "aligning briefing schedules to allow for simultaneous and prompt judgments and assigning the case to the same three-judge panel."
In its motion for summary judgment, the foundation's claims against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs largely echoed those made by the other plaintiffs before the trade court. For instance, the foundation argued that IEEPA's "text and context" confirm that the law doesn't authorize the imposition of tariffs, the emergency declarations related to prolonged trade deficits and the flow of fentanyl don't address any "unusual and extraordinary threat," and that IEEPA is an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power.