On June 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) granted the federal government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, pausing enforcement of a U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) injunction on the collection of Section 122 duties against the State of Washington and two private businesses – Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Basic Fun, Inc.
As previously reported, the CIT’s judgment declared Proclamation No. 11012 “invalid as contrary to law,” ordered permanent injunctive relief for those plaintiffs, but declined to enter a universal injunction.And as discussed in a separate insight, the CIT later denied the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal.
In granting the stay, the CAFC applied the traditional four-factor test: (1) the Government’s likelihood to succeed on the merits of the case; (2) whether the Government will be irreparably harmed if a stay is not granted; (3) whether importers will be substantially injured by a stay; and (4) the harm to the public interest. The CAFC found that three of the four factors favored the Government.
Factor 1 – Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The CAFC found the Government made a sufficient showing that it is likely to succeed on appeal, explaining that:
- legislative history cited by the Government “strongly called into question” the CIT majority’s limited interpretation of the “balance-of-payments deficit” provision
- Importers’ nondelegation doctrine concerns were of no moment because guardrails contained in Section 122 showed Congress did not impermissibly delegate its tariff setting power to the President
Factor 2 – Irreparable Injury to the Government
CAFC concluded the Government is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a stay, crediting arguments that:
- other plaintiffs could file follow-on actions seeking similar relief, effectively expanding the injunction’s real-world impact beyond the named plaintiffs
- even a scope-limited injunction can irreparably affect the nation’s trade policy
- United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) would face difficulties in complying with the injunction because CBP would have to reprogram its systems to award refunds
Factor 3 – Substantial Injury Faced By Importers
The CAFC concluded that a stay would not substantially injure plaintiffs, reasoning that:
- any improper duty collections would be addressed through refunds with interest, and
- other asserted harms such as operational disruptions and loss of profits will exist, irrespective of a stay, if the Section 122 duties are found lawful
Factor 4 – Public Interest
The CAFC treated the public interest factor as neutral, explaining that each side’s public-interest framing depended on the ultimate outcome on the merits (i.e., whether the tariff program is lawful).
The Husch Blackwell International Trade and Supply Chain team will continue to monitor and provide updates on this case as they become available. If you have company-specific questions or concerns, please contact your Husch Blackwell attorney.