The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 stayed the Court of International Trade's decision vacating all of President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the government's appeal of the case. In a per curium order, all CAFC judges in regular active service merely said "a stay is warranted under the circumstances" (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The government withdrew its emergency stay motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 3 after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs pending the government's appeal of the decision (see 2506030048). The U.S. said Judge Rudolph Contreras' decision staying his judgment "renders moot the government's motion in this Court for a stay pending appeal. The government is also seeking an emergency stay of the Court of International Trade's decision vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under IEEPA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, though CAFC has issued an administrative stay while it mulls the emergency stay bid (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 stayed the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction on all of President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the appeal of the case. In a per curium order, all CAFC judges in regular active service said "a stay is warranted under the circumstances." In addition, the court said all active judges will hear the case, as opposed to the court's traditional three-judge panel approach, in light of the "issues of exceptional importance" presented by the matter.
The Court of International Trade denied the U.S. motion to stay proceedings in a case challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold for Chinese products. Detroit Axle, the importer challenging the government, then filed an emergency motion requesting the dates ordered by CIT be moved earlier to "preserve Detroit Axle’s ability to obtain meaningful relief" (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
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).
Akin Gump attorneys, representing two small importers, filed an unopposed motion to expedite consideration of the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the validity of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The importers' proposed schedule for the case would conclude briefing on Aug. 8 and see the appellate court hold oral argument either during a "special summer sitting" or on the first date in the court's September sitting (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The State of California appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's decision to dismiss its case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, filing on June 4 a motion to expedite the appeal. California's proposed schedule would see briefing conclude on Aug. 18, with California's opening brief due on June 30 (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).
The 12 states challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the Trump administration's claim that it will be irreparably harmed without a stay are undermined by administration officials' own statements (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
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).
Joseph Barloon, who was a general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative during Donald Trump's first term, told Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that he believes in rules-based trade.