The Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of International Trade on Monday to pause its ruling blocking the president’s Section 122 tariffs, warning that even a temporary halt could disrupt trade negotiations and trigger a surge in imports.
In a court declaration, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said suspending the 10% tariff could undermine talks with trading partners.
“If certain key trading partners walk away from the table now, these negotiations may never resume,” Greer wrote, even if the tariffs are ultimately upheld on appeal.
The Section 122 tariffs were imposed after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in February that Trump’s earlier global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful.
Last week, the Court of International Trade ruled against the administration on the Section 122 tariffs in a case brought by two small businesses and the state of Washington. The ruling applies only to those plaintiffs, meaning the government continues collecting the tariffs from most importers while the litigation proceeds.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said removing the tariffs during the appeal would cause immediate economic disruption.
“Premature removal of the surcharge would usher in a flood of imports that characterized the pre-global tariff landscape,” Lutnick wrote in a declaration, adding that the economic effects “cannot be repaired later.”
Administration officials also warned that refunding tariffs could strain U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is already processing roughly $166 billion in refunds tied to the earlier IEEPA tariffs.
CBP official Brandon Lord said implementing the injunction for additional importers would become “increasingly unworkable,” citing more than 13 million entry summaries involving Section 122 duties.
Liberty Justice Center Senior Counsel Jeffrey Schwab, who represents the small-business plaintiffs, criticized the administration’s request.
“They should not pass illegal tariffs and then complain about the results of getting them struck down,” Schwab said.
Schwab said the plaintiffs would oppose the stay request, arguing the administration faces no harm because the ruling currently applies to only three plaintiffs.
“The court found that the proclamation was unlawful under Section 122, so I think that’s a very big deal,” Schwab told The Center Square.
Before the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs in February, Trump repeatedly warned the ruling would leave the nation “defenseless” and near “Third World status.” The court ruled against him anyway, and the administration pivoted to Section 122 within hours of the ruling.
The administration has already appealed the trade court ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and said it would seek emergency relief there if the trade court denies its stay request.
At the same time, the administration is preparing alternative tariff authorities. Trump said Saturday on Truth Social that using Section 301 authority would be “far slower and more laborious.”
The administration has opened Section 301 investigations involving 16 major U.S. trading partners. Hearings concluded Friday, and new tariffs could take effect as early as July.
Polling shows Americans remain divided on who ultimately pays tariffs. A March The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll found 42% of voters believe U.S. consumers bear most tariff costs, while 12% said foreign countries primarily pay them.
Several economic studies have similarly concluded that Americans are paying nearly the entire cost of tariffs, not foreign nations, as Trump has said, including analyses from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and Duke University.
