US Says CIT Reconsideration of Wisconsin Man's Tariff Suit 'Unwarranted'
Wisconsin resident Gary Barnes' motion to have the Court of International Trade set aside its decision to dismiss his case against the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is an "unwarranted" motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said. Even if the motion is an amended complaint, as Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in ordering the government to respond, it fails to allege a "particularized, actual or imminent injury and should be dismissed," the U.S. said (Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
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.
In May, Choe-Groves dismissed Barnes' case for lack of standing, since Barnes failed to claim that any harm he would suffer by Trump's tariffs is "particularized" or "actual or imminent" (see 2505230017). Barnes filed his pro se suit in February, arguing that any attempt by the president to levy import duties amounts to an improper delegation of power under the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026).
While Barnes said he's a private citizen concerned about the effect tariffs will have on consumer prices and unconstitutional action taken by the president, the trade court said these fears aren't "particularized." Nor is Barnes' claimed harm actual or imminent, Choe-Groves held, since Barnes failed to plead how he has been injured by "incurring specific costs that increased as a result of the imposed tariffs."
In response to the ruling, Barnes moved the court to reverse the decision. Choe-Groves then told the government to reply to Barnes' "amended complaint."
The U.S. said Barnes' motion is actually a motion to reconsider the decision, and that such a motion is unwarranted and should be rejected. The only additional issue Barnes raises in his filing "suggests that some retailers have independently chosen to charge more for some products in light of the tariffs at issue," the government said. But like Barnes' original allegation, this claim fails to show that he will "(1) suffer a 'particularized injury' like 'importers' might, and (2) be 'injured by incurring specific costs that increased as a result of the imposed tariffs,'" the U.S. said.
If the court deems the motion to be an amended complaint, the court should still dismiss the case, since the amended complaint also fails to allege a particularized, actual or imminent injury, the government argued. There are no factual allegations in Barnes' filing that establish that he's either a "member of a group that may have a particularized injury, such as importers" or "has been injured by incurring specific costs that increased as a result of the imposed tariffs," the brief said.
The government added that Barnes lacks prudential standing due to the fact that actual importers have filed their own cases challenging tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Barnes failed to provide any "reason why those responsible for paying the additional tariffs are unable to seek relief in this Court for alleged violations of their own rights," the brief said.