Importers Say They Will Suffer Irreparable Harm If Stay of CIT IEEPA Decision Is Granted
The importers challenging the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the importers will be irreparably harmed by the stay while the president "is not harmed by the denial of authority he does not legally possess" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
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.
Last week, the Court of International Trade issued a permanent injunction vacating all executive orders implementing tariffs under IEEPA, ruling that the tariffs exceeded the powers conferred to the president under the statute (see 2505280068). The Federal Circuit then temporarily stayed the ruling while it mulls the government's motion for an emergency stay (see 2505290039). The government had urged the Federal Circuit for a stay, claiming that the trade court's ruling would seriously undermine ongoing trade negotiations and otherwise kneecap U.S. foreign policy efforts.
In response to the U.S. bid for a stay pending the case's entire appeal, the importers challenging the tariffs, represented by conservative litigation firm Liberty Justice Center, argued that the bid for a stay should be rejected given the evidence presented before the CIT that the harm they face "because of the President’s unlawful tariffs" is irreparable: "it goes beyond the monetary loss of paying the tariffs."
Despite the U.S. claim that a stay would "only subject Plaintiffs to monetary harm from paying tariffs," the plaintiffs argued that the stay would cause their relationships with suppliers to suffer, their reputations to suffer, and cause them to lose business opportunities, potentially forcing them to "have to go out of business entirely." The remedy proposed by the U.S., a refund of tariffs paid, is "insulting," the importers said: "What good is a refund of the tariffs paid to a business that is bankrupt and no longer exists?"
Meanwhile, the importers asserted that there will be no harm to the government should the stay be denied pending appeal. The government isn't harmed by an injunction "preventing it from imposing unlawful tariffs" because "the government has no legitimate interest in upholding an unconstitutional system,” the plaintiffs argued, citing United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 726 (1971) (Brennan J., concurring).
The importers also dismissed U.S. arguments that denying a stay would interfere with ongoing trade negotiations, which the government said are premised on the president's ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA, because "The President cannot do whatever he wants simply because it might affect foreign affairs and national security." The U.S. cannot simply cite powers it doesn't possess and claim that denial of a stay would abrogate them, the importers argued: "The President cannot act illegally as a matter of policy convenience, be ordered to stop, and then plead prior reliance on his illegal acts."
Additionally, the government failed to show that it will succeed on appeal, the importers argued, as they "'simply rehash[ed] arguments that the CIT has already rejected." The government continues to "assert virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs" after the President has declared an emergency, the importers said, despite CIT declaring that such a power would represent an "improper abdication of legislative power" to the executive.