US Asks CIT for Stays of Remaining IEEPA Tariff Suits; Importers Push Back
The U.S. has asked the Court of International Trade to stay the remaining cases on its docket challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending its appeal of the trade court's recent decision vacating all tariffs thus far imposed under IEEPA. The government argued that a stay is "warranted," since "an appellate ruling would be binding on plaintiffs’ claims" at CIT and resources will be spared in not having to litigate the same issues (Princess Awesome v. United States, CIT # 25-00078) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. United States, CIT # 25-00096).
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.
After CIT's ruling on President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs (see 2505280068), two cases directly challenging the IEEPA tariffs remain: one brought on behalf of small importer Simplified by conservative advocacy group the New Civil Liberties Alliance and one brought on behalf of 11 importers by libertarian advocacy group the Pacific Legal Foundation. The government has now sought a stay in both cases.
In addition, there are cases on the trade court's docket challenging the tariffs and the elimination of the de minimis threshold on goods from China (see 2505190050), and a proposed class action on behalf of all importers who paid the invalidated IEEPA tariffs (see 2505300024).
The U.S. argued that the two cases brought by the advocacy groups should be stayed, since their outcome will be "governed by the outcome of the pending appeal" in the cases on which the trade court has already ruled. The government said the claims are "identical," making it "manifestly inefficient and a waste of judicial resources for the case to proceed to judgment."
The Pacific Legal Foundation has already filed its opposition to the stay bid, and John Vecchione, counsel for the NCLA, told us they plan to oppose the motion as well. The NCLA, which initially filed its case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, said it intends to push back on the notion that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the suit.
The issue of jurisdiction arose before the Florida court, with the court ruling that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction based on Section 1581(i), which says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs (see 2505210027). Since then, the question of jurisdiction has only grown more contentious, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruling that it has jurisdiction, since IEEPA isn't a law providing for tariffs, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruling that CIT does in fact have exclusive jurisdiction (see 2505290040).
In its bid to stay the Simplified case, the U.S. said, at minimum, the trade court should "limit briefing to the issue of whether this Court possesses jurisdiction to consider this matter." Vecchione said "so far no party has explained to the CIT or the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit] why they do not have jurisdiction."
In its opposition to the stay motion, the Pacific Legal Foundation argued that the 11 importers it represents continue to suffer "irreparable injury" caused by the tariffs, adding that its motion for summary judgment is fully briefed and "ripe for immediate resolution." The foundation said while the government says it's entitled to a stay, since it will be harmed by "potentially having to file additional briefing to stay this Court’s order and to deal with an additional case in an already consolidated appeal," this is "no harm at all."
Conversely, staying the case "would seriously prejudice Plaintiffs after briefing was completed, and with a judgment already effectively in their favor," the brief said. The importers would be "denied relief, including their requested refunds, and the ability to defend their interests in the just-filed appeal," the foundation argued.