The Daily Fuckup

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 7 that the administration’s Section 122 tariff program was unlawful and granted permanent relief only to the State of Washington and the two private importer plaintiffs in the case, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Basic Fun, Inc. The court also dismissed the claims of the other state plaintiffs without prejudice for lack of standing. ([cit.uscourts.gov](https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/26-47.pdf))

The opinion targets Proclamation No. 11012, the February directive that imposed a temporary import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. In the court’s view, the statute did not authorize the tariff action as written. The panel granted summary judgment for the successful plaintiffs and denied the alternative requests for preliminary injunctions as moot. ([cit.uscourts.gov](https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/26-47.pdf))

The remedy matters. This was not a blanket order that automatically wiped out the tariffs for every importer or every state in the coalition. The court’s injunction runs to the parties that established standing and prevailed on the merits. The remaining state plaintiffs were not rejected with a final merits ruling; their claims were dismissed without prejudice, leaving the standing issue unresolved in the narrower procedural sense that phrase carries. ([cit.uscourts.gov](https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/26-47.pdf))

The decision takes direct aim at one of the administration’s fallback tariff tools after earlier trade losses. It also leaves the White House room to appeal and to keep pressing other tariff theories in other cases. For now, though, the court has said Section 122 cannot support this version of the policy, and it has limited the injunction to the plaintiffs who cleared the standing hurdle and won judgment. ([cit.uscourts.gov](https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/26-47.pdf))