CIT Lets CAFC Decide US Stay Motion in IEEPA Cases, Expands Jurisdiction Discussion
The Court of International Trade on June 3 left the question of whether to stay its ruling vacating all executive orders imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said that CAFC's "impending consideration of the motion to stay before it makes it unnecessary for this court to rule on the USCIT Motions to Stay" (V.O.S. Selections v. United States, CIT # 25-00066) (The State of Oregon v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, CIT # 25-00077).
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 judges said the trade court can't consider whether the U.S. will be irreparably injured absent a stay, since CIT's ruling wouldn't affect the current administrative stay on the trade court's ruling issued by the Federal Circuit. Also, were CIT to deny a stay, the decision could be "immediately superseded by the Federal Circuit’s imposition of one," the court said.
Last week, the trade court vacated all IEEPA tariff EOs signed by President Donald Trump, finding that they exceeded the authority granted to the president by IEEPA (see 2505280068). The U.S. immediately appealed and filed an emergency stay motion at both CIT and the Federal Circuit. The appellate court issued an administrative stay while it mulls the emergency stay bid (see 2505290039). Concurrently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia categorically ruled that IEEPA doesn't allow for any tariff action, though it stayed its ruling pending appeal.
In its decision holding the government's stay motion in abeyance, the trade court also made a point to revisit the question of jurisdiction. The trade court has now repeatedly said it has exclusive jurisdiction to hear IEEPA tariff lawsuits under Section 1581(i), which says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. The D.C. court said CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction, since IEEPA isn't a law providing for tariffs.
The split has raised questions about which court has the right of it (see 2505290040). In its initial decision, the CIT judges said the IEEPA tariffs "made amendments" to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and that the HTS is the law of the U.S. setting tariffs.
Expanding on this ruling, the trade court said "law" is a "broader term than 'statutes.'" The judges said to the "extent the challenged Tariff Orders bind Customs to collect duties at the rates they prescribe, they are laws of the United States." The tariff EOs also "effect changes to the" HTS, meaning they are "law[s]" in the "additional sense that they modify a statute: The HTSUS 'shall be considered to be statutory provisions of law for all purposes.'"
CIT said this "jurisdictional conclusion does not hinge on whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs as a categorical matter -- a question this court did not reach in its opinion on May 28."
In a footnote, the court said if jurisdiction tracked the merits question of whether IEEPA allows for tariffs, CIT would have exclusive jurisdiction to only hear "unsuccessful claims of ultra vires presidential tariff orders, with successful claims left to the federal district courts (or to no court at all)." This conclusion "would accomplish the opposite of 'remedy[ing] the confusion over the division of jurisdiction between ... the Court of International Trade ... and the district courts and ... ensur[ing] uniformity in the judicial decisionmaking process,'" the court said.