CIT Dismisses Wisconsin Man's Suit on Presidential Tariff Action for Lack of Standing
The Court of International Trade on May 23 dismissed Wisconsin man Gary Barnes' case against the ability of the president to impose tariffs. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that Barnes didn't have standing because he failed to claim that any harm he would suffer by tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is "particularized" or "actual or imminent."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Choe-Groves also addressed the court's jurisdiction over the action, finding that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the suit. The judge said CIT has previously "exercised exclusive jurisdiction broadly in constitutional challenges to tariffs, duties, exactions, and embargoes."
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).
The trade court first established jurisdiction over the case under Section 1581(i) -- a provision that says CIT has exclusive jurisdiction to hear civil cases arising out of any law that provides for tariffs. Choe-Groves said CIT's exclusive jurisdiction in this case is "significant" because "Congress had in mind consolidating this area of administrative law in one place" and giving CIT "the opportunity to bring to it a degree of uniformity and consistency," particularly given its "already developed expertise in international trade and tariff matters."
Choe-Groves noted that, in one of the court's earliest cases, it recognized it had jurisdiction over a case challenging duties imposed under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor. Since the Supreme Court has said the authorities granted by IEEPA "are essentially the same as those" in TWEA, though IEEPA contains different "conditions and procedures," jurisdiction at CIT is proper. The discussion is relevant for cases filed in various U.S. district courts challenging IEEPA tariff action in which the U.S. has filed motions to transfer the suits to CIT.
The Wisconsin man said recent tariffs imposed by Trump, including those on China, Mexico and Canada, harm retired individuals, including himself, who reside on a fixed income, along with low-income individuals who are less equipped to deal with price increases. The government moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that Barnes has failed to establish Article III standing, which requires a plaintiff to have suffered a particularized harm that's actual or imminent.
Barnes urged the court to show latitude on the question of standing given that he's raising a constitutional challenge. Choe-Groves declined this invitation, finding that the court isn't aware of any authority "that would support applying a lesser standard for parties asserting claims based on the Constitution."
The judge then said Barnes' alleged harm is neither particularized nor actual or imminent. The Wisconsin man said he's a "private citizen concerned by the possibility that costs of goods will increase, not a member of a group that may have a particularized injury, such as importers." Barnes' fears of higher costs and unconstitutional conduct "are therefore not particularized," Choe-Groves held.
The alleged harm is also not actual or imminent, since Barnes has failed to plead "how he has been injured by incurring specific costs that increased as a result of the imposed tariffs," the court held. Since the man hasn't pleaded a "consumer injury that is more than speculative at this time, the injury claimed is not actual or imminent for purposes of standing," the judge said.
(Gary Barnes v. United States, Slip Op. 25-65, CIT # 25-00043, dated 05/23/25; Judge: Jennifer Choe-Groves; Attorneys: Gary Barnes, pro se plaintiff; Justin Miller for defendant U.S. government)