-and-
“This ruling is a major victory for our communities, our businesses, and our economy.”
~Attorney General Raúl Torrez
Source: NM Department of Justice
Cover Photo of United States Court of International Trade Building, New York: Courtesy
Statement from New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez
Wednesday, May 28 | 6:02 p.m.
Background: Moments ago, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued its opinion and order in our tariffs case, striking down and permanently enjoining all of the challenged tariffs as invalid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Statement: “This ruling is a major victory for our communities, our businesses, and our economy,” said Attorney General Raúl Torrez. “The Court’s decision confirms what we have long argued: these tariffs were imposed unlawfully and will cause real harm to working families, small businesses, and local industries. We are proud to help protect consumers who continue to struggle with higher prices, and we will continue to stand up for fair, lawful trade policies that support – not hurt – our communities.”
“Conclusion”–United States Court of International Trade
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 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.
