The U.S. Court of International Trade recently ruled against a request from the federal government to stay the enforcement of a judgment regarding tariffs imposed by Proclamation No. 11012. This ruling affects importers and the State of Washington, who challenged the legality of these tariffs. The decision is significant as it upholds the court's previous ruling that deemed the tariffs unlawful.
On May 20, 2026, the court denied the government's motion for a stay pending appeal in the cases of Oregon v. United States, Court No. 26-01472, and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 26-01606. The court's decision means that the injunction against the collection of these tariffs will remain in effect while the appeal is considered.
Background
The plaintiffs in these cases include the State of Washington and two companies, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Basic Fun, Inc. They contested the imposition of duties that were enacted under Proclamation No. 11012, which was issued on February 20, 2026, to address international payments problems. The plaintiffs filed their complaints in March 2026, seeking to challenge the legality of these tariffs.
The case reached the U.S. Court of International Trade after the plaintiffs argued that the tariffs imposed by the proclamation were unlawful. On May 7, 2026, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the proclamation invalid and permanently enjoining its enforcement against the plaintiffs. The government subsequently appealed this ruling and sought a stay of enforcement.
The Ruling
In its ruling, the court denied the government's request for a stay of enforcement of the judgment. The judges involved in the decision were Chief Judge Mark A. Barnett, Judge Claire R. Kelly, and Judge Timothy C. Stanceu. The court stated, "Defendants fail to persuade the court that forgoing the collection of Section 122 duties from the three successful Importer Plaintiffs will cause the Government irreparable harm." This indicates that the court found the government's arguments for a stay unconvincing.
The court also emphasized that the injunction specifically applies to the three plaintiffs and does not pose a broader threat to the government's ability to conduct trade negotiations or manage foreign affairs. The judges noted that the plaintiffs would suffer substantial injury if the stay were granted, as they would continue to pay unlawful duties while waiting for refunds.
Impact
The court's ruling has significant implications for the affected parties. By denying the stay, the court reinforces the principle that executive actions must align with legal standards set by Congress. This ruling also sets a precedent by emphasizing the judiciary's role in checking executive power, particularly regarding tariff impositions.
Going forward, the decision may influence other importers who are facing similar tariff challenges. The court's clear stance against the government's position may encourage more businesses to contest unlawful tariffs, knowing they have judicial support. Additionally, the ruling could impact the government's approach to tariff imposition and enforcement in the future.
What's Next
The government can appeal the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal process will determine whether the court's ruling will be upheld or overturned. Details regarding any related cases were not available in the court filing.