Advancing American Freedom led a coalition of 11 other amici filing an amicus brief in Oregon v. Trump and Burlap and Barrel v. Trump, two cases challenging the President’s tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
On the very day that the Supreme Court struck down tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President announced a new rash of worldwide tariffs ostensibly under Section 122, which allows the President to impose limited tariffs to address “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.”
Section 122 has never been used to implement tariffs because it was obsolete from the moment it became law. A “balance of payments deficit” is a natural consequence of the fixed exchange rate system which the world abandoned decades ago. As even the government admitted last year, noted in our amicus brief, a “balance of payments deficit” is not the same thing as a trade deficit.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled against the executive branch’s tariffs and enjoined the President’s enforcement of those tariffs against the Plaintiffs in this case. The government appealed to the Federal Circuit asking it to stay the CIT’s injunction pending appeal.
Contrary to the administration’s claims, continuing the collection of illegal tariffs is not in the public interest. Illegal tariffs cause irreparable harm to the American people. The courts should not allow the executive to use litigation as a means of extending the effectiveness of illegal tariffs.
“The Federal Circuit should not allow the President to continue collecting illegal tariffs,” said AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat. “Even if the administration ultimately pays out refunds, as it is currently doing for its IEEPA tariffs, those refunds cannot repair the economic harm suffered by Americans who lost jobs, missed mortgage payments, or had to skip their family vacation because of the inflation and higher prices caused by tariffs. And tariff refunds come with interest, meaning that, adding insult to injury, American taxpayers are not only forced to pay higher prices but must also foot the bill when refunds come due. The Federal Circuit should decline to stay the CIT’s injunction.”