The State of Oregon v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00077

Plaintiffs challenged certain Tariff Orders and their amendments, arguing they were issued without proper legal authority by the executive branch, specifically regarding duties and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (“HTSUS”).
The Court of International Trade (CIT) granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and issued declaratory and permanent injunctive relief barring enforcement of these Tariff Orders.
The relief was granted based on plaintiffs’ success on the merits and the inadequacy of legal remedies (piecemeal duty refunds not sufficient under the Uniformity Clause).
The court emphasized the public interest in ensuring government compliance with the law and found the U.S. government would not suffer hardship from the non-enforcement of ultra vires orders.
The U.S. government moved to stay the court’s injunction pending appeal to the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit issued a temporary administrative stay pending its decision on the stay motion.
The CIT held off on ruling on the stay motion, deferring to the Federal Circuit’s resolution of the overlapping issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
CIT's Jurisdiction over Tariff Orders	Tariff Orders are 'laws' relating to tariffs, CIT jurisdiction.	Jurisdiction might depend on whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs.	CIT has exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
Legality of Tariff Orders (Ultra Vires)	Orders were issued without proper statutory authority.	Orders are valid exercises of executive power; legal remedies suffice.	Orders held ultra vires; injunctive relief appropriate.
Adequacy of Legal Remedy	Piecemeal duty refunds inadequate under Uniformity Clause.	Duty refunds provide adequate remedy to aggrieved parties.	Legal remedies deemed inadequate; injunction justified.
Stay Pending Appeal	No grounds for stay; public interest weighs against continued enforcement.	Irreparable injury without a stay, pending Federal Circuit review.	Decision on stay deferred, awaiting Federal Circuit action.

Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (affirming public interest in government compliance with the law for equitable relief)
Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat. Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974) (federal law includes executive orders for Supremacy Clause purposes)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (executive authority limited, ultra vires acts not shielded from injunctive relief)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standard governing stays pending appeal)
Orleans Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over certain customs matters)
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176 (1988) (consolidating international trade jurisdiction in the CIT for uniformity)