The Trump administration moved Monday to pause a federal court ruling that struck down the president's Section 122 tariffs, warning that lifting the 10% import surcharge mid-appeal could wreck ongoing trade negotiations and trigger a damaging wave of foreign goods into the country.
The request, filed with the U.S. Court of International Trade, came days after the same court ruled against the administration in a case brought by two small businesses and the state of Washington. The ruling found the tariff proclamation unlawful under Section 122, handing the White House its second major legal defeat on trade policy in a matter of months.
For now, the injunction applies only to the three plaintiffs in the case. The government continues collecting the tariffs from the vast majority of importers. But the administration made clear it views even a narrow halt as a threat, filing declarations from three senior officials to back up its stay request.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, in a court declaration, cast the tariffs as a live bargaining chip in talks with foreign governments. As Just the News reported, Greer warned the court directly about the diplomatic stakes.
"If certain key trading partners walk away from the table now, these negotiations may never resume."
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick filed a separate declaration arguing that removing the tariffs during the appeal would cause immediate economic harm that could not be undone later.
"Premature removal of the surcharge would usher in a flood of imports that characterized the pre-global tariff landscape."
That damage, Lutnick said, "cannot be repaired later."
A third declaration came from CBP official Brandon Lord, who described the practical burden the ruling would create for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Lord cited more than 13 million entry summaries involving Section 122 duties and called the prospect of implementing the injunction for additional importers "increasingly unworkable."
CBP is already processing roughly $166 billion in refunds tied to the earlier tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, tariffs the Supreme Court struck down 6-3 in February. Adding a new wave of refund obligations on top of that backlog, the administration argues, would strain the agency past its limits.
The current fight traces back to that February Supreme Court decision, which ruled that President Trump's sweeping global tariffs under IEEPA exceeded his statutory authority. The 6-3 ruling was a significant setback. Trump at the time warned it would leave the nation "defenseless" and near "Third World status."
Within hours, the administration pivoted. Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a replacement 10% global tariff, keeping the trade framework in place while signaling that the White House would not accept a gap in its leverage.
That replacement tariff lasted roughly three months before the Court of International Trade blocked it last week. The administration has already appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and told the trade court it would seek emergency relief from the appeals court if the stay request is denied.
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, represents the two small-business plaintiffs in the case. He made clear his clients will oppose the administration's stay request, and offered no sympathy for the government's predicament.
"They should not pass illegal tariffs and then complain about the results of getting them struck down."
Schwab pointed to the narrow scope of the current ruling as evidence the administration faces no real harm. The injunction applies to just three plaintiffs. The government keeps collecting tariffs from everyone else.
"The court found that the proclamation was unlawful under Section 122, so I think that's a very big deal."
The Liberty Justice Center's argument is straightforward: if a court finds a tariff illegal, the government has no right to keep collecting it while it appeals. The administration's argument runs the other direction, that the disruption of halting tariffs mid-negotiation outweighs the harm to three plaintiffs who won their case.
The administration is not relying solely on the courts. It has opened Section 301 investigations involving 16 major U.S. trading partners. Hearings on those investigations concluded Friday, and new tariffs under that authority could take effect as early as July.
Trump acknowledged Saturday on Truth Social that the Section 301 route would be "far slower and more laborious", a candid admission that the administration's preferred tools keep getting knocked out of its hands by the judiciary, forcing it into slower, more procedurally complex alternatives.
Meanwhile, the broader IEEPA tariff fight continues to move through the Federal Circuit. Newsmax reported that the appeals court has taken the unusual step of sending the IEEPA case directly to the full 11-member bench, citing issues of "exceptional importance." Arguments are scheduled for July 31. The court is allowing the tariffs to remain in effect temporarily while it reviews the lower court's decision.
Trump posted on Truth Social that the Federal Circuit's procedural move amounted to "a great and important win for the U.S.", though the court has not yet ruled on the merits.
The legal and political fallout from the Supreme Court's February ruling continues to ripple. Vice President Vance called the original decision "lawlessness" and framed the administration's search for alternative trade authorities as a necessary response to judicial overreach.
A March Center Square Voters' Voice Poll found the public divided on the basic economics of the tariff fight. Forty-two percent of voters said they believe U.S. consumers bear most tariff costs. Just 12% said foreign countries primarily pay them.
Those numbers reflect a debate that has dogged tariff policy for years. But the administration's legal filings suggest the White House views the question differently, not as an abstract economic argument but as a matter of negotiating leverage. Greer's declaration frames the tariffs as tools that give the U.S. a seat at the table. Remove them prematurely, and the leverage vanishes.
The ongoing refund obligations from the earlier IEEPA tariffs add another layer of complexity. With $166 billion already in the pipeline, CBP faces a logistical challenge that grows every time a court orders new relief.
The immediate question is whether the Court of International Trade grants the stay. If it does, the 10% tariff remains in place for all importers while the appeal proceeds. If it doesn't, the administration has telegraphed its next move: an emergency request to the Federal Circuit.
Either way, the Section 301 investigations provide a parallel track. New tariffs under that authority could land as soon as July, slower and more cumbersome, as the president himself admitted, but potentially harder to challenge in court.
The administration's argument boils down to a simple proposition: courts should not dismantle trade policy in the middle of active negotiations, especially when the ruling applies to only three parties. The plaintiffs' argument is equally direct: the law is the law, and an illegal tariff doesn't become legal because the government finds it useful.
Both sides have a point. But the pattern is hard to miss. Every time the judiciary removes a tariff tool from the president's hands, the administration reaches for another one. The legal walls keep going up. The White House keeps looking for doors.
At some point, the courts will have to decide whether the executive branch has any tariff authority left that can survive judicial review, or whether trade policy now belongs entirely to Congress. That question matters far more than any single stay request. And right now, nobody in Washington seems eager to answer it.