US Says IEEPA Plaintiffs 'Mischaracterize' Admin Officials' Statements on Effect of CIT Ruling
The parties contesting the government's emergency stay motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the Court of International Trade's ruling on the president's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs "mischaracterize" statements made by administration officials on the effect of the CIT's ruling, the U.S. said. Responding to claims from 12 U.S. states and a group of importers, the government argued that the trade court's injunction against the IEEPA tariffs is "legally untenable and risks irreparable economic and national-security harms" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
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.
The trade court permanently enjoined all tariffs thus far issued under IEEPA last month, finding that President Donald Trump exceeded the powers conferred by the statute when implementing his reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to curb the flow of fentanyl (see 2505280068). CAFC temporarily stayed the ruling while it mulled the government's emergency stay motion (see 2505290039).
In response to the government's stay bid, the 12 U.S. states and importers challenging the tariffs argued the appellate court shouldn't stay the ruling, since they are likely to succeed on appeal and the government is misrepresenting the potential diplomatic and foreign policy consequences from the CIT ruling (see 2506050058). To counter the U.S. claims that the trade court's ruling kneecaps U.S. foreign policy and undermines ongoing trade negotiations, the plaintiffs pointed to statements made by Trump administration officials declaring that the ruling hasn't had an impact on ongoing trade talks.
The government responded by claiming that the states and importers "ignore that this Court subsequently stayed the CIT's injunction." The U.S. added that the ongoing trade negotiations "may fail, or produce less favorable terms, where trading partners have 'reduced incentives to reach meaningful agreements.'" The brief cited a statement from an EU official noting that the legal uncertainty of the IEEPA tariffs gives the EU "extra leverage" in negotiations.
The states and importers additionally claimed that the equities favor rejecting a stay, since the president can't purport to rely on "authority he does not have." In response, the U.S. said this claim "recycles plaintiffs’ faulty merits arguments and ignores that injunctive relief 'does not follow from success on the merits as a matter of course.'" Even if the plaintiffs succeed on appeal, the injunction shouldn't take effect pending appeal "given the severe, irreparable harms the injunction would inflict on the government," the brief said.
And even assuming the economic impacts suffered by the plaintiffs are irreparable, these harms "cannot justify allowing this injunction to take effect, given the severe and irreparable harm that it would pose to the President’s ability to exercise his delegated powers in support of national security," the U.S. said.
The government also emphasized the trade court's failure to discuss the equities prior to issuing its injunction, arguing that the states and importers are asking the Federal Circuit to "act as a court of first view" by sifting through evidence the trade court ignored and supplement the record with "selective quotes from public officials' media appearances." The U.S. said this is "no way for courts to review one of the most significant injunctions ever to cross the Judiciary's docket."
The U.S. also added to its legal defense of the IEEPA tariffs, arguing that the statute provides for tariffs generally; IEEPA can be used to address trade deficits, notwithstanding Section 122's grant of a similar power; and that the fentanyl tariffs "deal with" with the declared emergency.