Importers Ask CIT to Reconsider Stay of IEEPA Case Pending 'V.O.S. Selections' Appeal
Importers, led by Simplified, asked the Court of International Trade on June 24 to reconsider its decision to stay the company's suit against the tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Simplified said the stay order prevents it from raising its argument that the IEEPA suit actually belongs in a U.S. district court, and not CIT, while the government hasn't shown the "hardship necessary to justify a stay," the brief said (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, 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.
CIT Judges Timothy Reif, Gary Katzmann and Jane Restani stayed the matter pending a final decision on appeal in a separate suit on the IEEPA tariffs, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump. In V.O.S. Selections, the same three judges vacated the executive orders implementing all tariffs issued thus far under IEEPA by President Donald Trump (see 2505280068). That decision is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Opposing the trade court's decision to stay its case pending the V.O.S. appeal, Simplified argued that in light of the fact that it's challenging the trade court's jurisdiction and asserting an "affirmative claim not included in V.O.S. Selections," the U.S. must show it would "suffer 'clear hardship' from continuing to defend this case." The importer said the government "does not identify any hardship at all," and instead relies entirely on an "appeal to judicial economy."
While judicial economy can "weigh in favor of a stay" if the party meets the other stay requirements, the other reuqirements haven't been met, the importer continued. The government's "real motivation" in obtaining a stay is to receive an "improper benefit," which takes the form of leverage in ongoing trade negotiations, Simplified argued. "But under the long-established standards governing Defendants’ Motion, that is not a permissible ground for a stay," the brief said.
The importer said the prejudice it will suffer if the stay proceeds "is even worse than the delay of their right to challenge jurisdiction now and, if their challenge succeeds, to proceed with their case in another court." If the case is stayed until V.O.S. is fully appealed, "it will be far too late" to "begin challenging jurisdiction in this Court, and if the challenge succeeds, to press their claims in another court."
At that time, the importer will continue to suffer financial injuries that "threaten their continued existence" and will "never be recoverable from the Government as damages," the brief said. "In these dire circumstances, Plaintiffs have a right to make their jurisdiction challenge now and advance the claim that is not included" in V.O.S. Selections.