The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 issued an administrative stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency motion to stay the CIT decision (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The District Court for the District of Columbia struck down all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act a day after the Court of International Trade did the same. However, Judge Rudolph Contreras went farther than the trade court, holding on May 29 that IEEPA categorically doesn't include the power to impose tariffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 stayed the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all trade action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency and Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency stay motion of the trade court's ruling. Yesterday, the trade court vacated all of Trump's executive orders imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. The U.S. immediately filled for a stay of the decision at CIT and the Federal Circuit, arguing that such a ruling would "hamstring" U.S. foreign policy.
The Court of International Trade on May 28 vacated and permanently enjoined all tariffs so far issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that the reciprocal tariffs and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, which were imposed to address the flow of fentanyl, fall outside the authority IEEPA grants to the president.
The U.S. filed another defense of tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act last week at the Court of International Trade, more fulsomely embracing the notion that the president needs tariff-setting authority under IEEPA to address a host of foreign policy issues. Opposing a group of 11 importers' motion for judgment against the reciprocal tariffs and IEEPA tariffs on China, the government argued that "the success of the Nation" in "navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats" is "built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools," including IEEPA tariffs (Princess Awesome v. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
The government has 10 days to issue orders implementing the Court of International Trade’s May 28 permanent injunction shutting down International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, as well as the 10% and country-specific IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, according to a judgment issued by the court alongside its opinion. The government has already filed an appeal of the decision.
The Court of International Trade on May 28 vacated President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, all of which were issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court held that the retaliatory tariffs "exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs" and that the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico "fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders." Judges Gary Katzmann, Jane Restani and Timothy Reif permanently enjoined the tariffs, declaring that if the tariffs are "unlawful as to Plaintiff they are unlawful as to all."
The Court of International Trade on May 21 held a second hearing in as many weeks on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The same three judges, Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, pressed both the government and counsel for 12 U.S. states challenging all IEEPA tariff actions on whether the statute allows for tariff action, as well as whether the courts can review if the declared emergencies are "unusual and extraordinary" and the extent to which the case is guided by Yoshida International v. U.S. (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Twelve U.S. states challenging all tariff actions taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act traded briefs with the government on the legality of the tariffs ahead of a May 21 hearing on the states' motion for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. The parties sparred on whether the eight states that didn't act as direct importers have standing to challenge the tariffs, whether the IEEPA tariffs have a reasonable connection to the declared threats of trade deficits and the flow of fenantyl, and whether the term "regulate" in the statute confers the power to impose tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).