US Bid for Stay of CIT IEEPA Decision Undercut by Admin Officials' Own Statements, US States Say
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).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
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 temporarily stayed the ruling while it mulls the government's motion for an emergency stay (see 2505290039).
In response to the U.S. bid for a stay pending the case's entire appeal, the 12 U.S. states challenging the tariffs, led by Oregon and Arizona, argued that the bid for a stay should be rejected given the immense harm faced by the states. The government 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.
To support its argument, the U.S. cited four declarations made by Trump Cabinet officials detailing how an adverse ruling would harm U.S. foreign policy. In response, the 12 states argued that the Federal Circuit shouldn't put any weight on the government's assertions about the effects of the trade court's ruling that were submitted "before that ruling." In any case, these four declarations are undermined by administration officials' own comments, the brief said.
The 12 states cited comments by Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council; Peter Navarro, the president's senior counselor for trade and manufacturing; Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick; and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, all saying, in one form or another, that the trade court's ruling won't affect ongoing trade negotiations. "Thus, this Court should not credit defendants’ assertions about the need for a stay to protect national security and the economy," the brief said.
Even if the president's negotiating position were harmed by the ruling, that still wouldn't justify a stay, since the "President tried to exercise authority that he does not have," the brief said. "The government cannot 'be heard to complain about damage inflicted by its own hand.'"
In addition, the trade court's ruling doesn't impact the other trade tools at the president's disposal, including sections 122 and 232 tariffs, nor does it "preclude him from asking Congress for additional authority, as Presidents in the past have done," the states argued. "Defendants may not want to comply with the substantive and procedural limitations that current law imposes, but that is not a basis to let them continue to act unlawfully."
The states' brief additionally contained all of the same substantive arguments made before the trade court. The brief said the U.S. hasn't made a strong showing it's likely to win on appeal, since the CIT judges made clear that the reciprocal tariffs don't fall in IEEPA's authorization to "regulate ... importation," and the tariffs meant to address the flow of fentanyl don't "deal with" the identified threat. "Both rulings are straightforward applications of IEEPA’s statutory limits," the brief said. "Defendants’ arguments do not make the 'strong showing' on the merits needed for a stay pending appeal."