On May 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) denied the government’s motion to stay enforcement of the court’s judgment invalidating the Section 122 tariffs imposed under Proclamation No. 11012. The ruling follows the CIT’s May 7, 2026 decision holding that the president exceeded the authority granted under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 by imposing tariffs based on a generalized trade deficit rationale.

The CIT’s judgment permanently enjoined enforcement of the Section 122 tariffs only as to the successful plaintiffs: Burlap and Barrel, Inc., Basic Fun, Inc., and the State of Washington and its instrumentalities. The court also ordered refunds, with interest as provided by law, for any Section 122 duties paid by the importer plaintiffs before the injunction is implemented.

The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and requested a stay pending appeal. Although the CIT denied the government’s stay request, the Federal Circuit has separately entered a temporary administrative stay while it considers the government’s appellate stay motion. Importantly, the Federal Circuit’s administrative stay does not conflict with the CIT’s May 20 order. The CIT denied the government’s stay request at the trial-court level after applying the traditional stay factors. The Federal Circuit’s administrative stay is a separate, temporary procedural order that preserves the status quo while the appellate court considers the government’s own stay motion.

In denying the stay, the CIT emphasized the narrow scope of its injunction, which applies only to “one spice importer, one toy company, and one state government whose state universities pay tariffs directly.” The court rejected the government’s argument that suspending tariff collections from those limited parties would irreparably harm the president’s ability to conduct trade negotiations, manage foreign affairs, or address balance-of-payments issues. The court also rejected the government’s public-interest arguments, including generalized economic, national-security, and foreign-affairs concerns. The CIT reiterated that Congress, not the Executive Branch alone, holds the constitutional authority to impose tariffs.

What This Means for Importers

The CIT’s order reinforces the court’s view that the Section 122 tariffs exceed the president’s statutory authority. However, the immediate practical effect remains limited. The injunction applies only to the named successful plaintiffs.

Importers that are not parties to the litigation should not assume that the CIT’s ruling automatically suspends their Section 122 duty obligations. Companies paying Section 122 duties should continue monitoring the appeal and preserve entry documentation, duty payment records, liquidation status, and potential refund claims.

For further information about this and other customs matters, contact George Tuttle III at geo@tuttlelaw.com or 415-986-8780.

The information in this article is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship with respect to any event or occurrence and may not be considered as such.

Copyright © 2026 by Tuttle Law
All rights reserved. 

Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable.  However, because of the possibility of human or mechanical error by our offices or by others, we do not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information and are not responsible for any errors, omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of such information.