Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Ruling of the United States Court of International Trade
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.55.0.pdfpage 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC.; PLASTIC SERVICES AND PRODUCTS, LLC d/b/a GENOVA PIPE; MICROKITS, LLC; FISHUSA INC.; and TERRY PRECISION CYCLING LLC;
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;
PETE R. FLORES in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner for United States Customs and Border Protection;
JAMIESON GREER, in his official capacity as United States Trade Representative;
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE; and
HOWARD LUTNICK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce;
Defendants.
THE STATE OF OREGON; THE STATE OF ARIZONA; THE STATE OF COLORADO; THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT; THE STATE OF DELAWARE; THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE STATE OF MAINE; THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; THE STATE OF NEW YORK; and THE STATE OF VERMONT;
Plaintiffs,
v. [same as above]
Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Timothy M. Reif, Judge
Jane A. Restani, Judge Court No. 25-00066
V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC.; PLASTIC SERVICES AND PRODUCTS, LLC d/b/a GENOVA PIPE; MICROKITS, LLC; FISHUSA INC.; and TERRY PRECISION CYCLING LLC;
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;
PETE R. FLORES in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner for United States Customs and Border Protection;
JAMIESON GREER, in his official capacity as United States Trade Representative;
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE; and
HOWARD LUTNICK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce;
Defendants.
THE STATE OF OREGON; THE STATE OF ARIZONA; THE STATE OF COLORADO; THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT; THE STATE OF DELAWARE; THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE STATE OF MAINE; THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; THE STATE OF NEW YORK; and THE STATE OF VERMONT;
Plaintiffs,
v. [same as above]
Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Timothy M. Reif, Judge
Jane A. Restani, Judge Court No. 25-00066
page 49
CONCLUSION
The court holds for the foregoing reasons that IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders. This conclusion entitles Plaintiffs to judgment as a matter of law; as the court further finds no genuine dispute as to any material fact, summary judgment will enter against the United States. See USCIT R. 56. The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined.
There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all. “[A]ll Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, and “[t]he tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.” Head
Case 1:25-cv-00066-GSK-TMR-JAR Document 55 Filed 05/28/25 Page 49 of 49
Court Nos. 25-00066 & 25-00077 Page 49 Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 594 (1884); see also Siemens Am., Inc. v. United States, 692 F.2d 1382, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1982); Nat’l Corn Growers Ass’n v. Baker, 10 CIT 517, 521, 643 F. Supp. 626, 630–31 (1986) (noting “the statutory and constitutional mandate of uniformity in the interpretation of the international trade laws”).
Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment are granted, and their Motions for Preliminary Injunction are denied as moot. Judgment will enter accordingly.
By the panel.
Dated: May 28, 2025
New York, New York
The court holds for the foregoing reasons that IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders. This conclusion entitles Plaintiffs to judgment as a matter of law; as the court further finds no genuine dispute as to any material fact, summary judgment will enter against the United States. See USCIT R. 56. The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined.
There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all. “[A]ll Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, and “[t]he tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.” Head
Case 1:25-cv-00066-GSK-TMR-JAR Document 55 Filed 05/28/25 Page 49 of 49
Court Nos. 25-00066 & 25-00077 Page 49 Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 594 (1884); see also Siemens Am., Inc. v. United States, 692 F.2d 1382, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1982); Nat’l Corn Growers Ass’n v. Baker, 10 CIT 517, 521, 643 F. Supp. 626, 630–31 (1986) (noting “the statutory and constitutional mandate of uniformity in the interpretation of the international trade laws”).
Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment are granted, and their Motions for Preliminary Injunction are denied as moot. Judgment will enter accordingly.
By the panel.
Dated: May 28, 2025
New York, New York