The Federal Circuit stayed the CIT's May 7 ruling invalidating Trump's 10% Section 122 tariff surcharge, limiting the injunction to three named plaintiffs while the appeal proceeds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an administrative stay on May 12, suspending a lower court order that had invalidated the Trump administration's Section 122 global tariff surcharge [1]. The stay freezes the practical effect of that ruling for the vast majority of affected importers while the government's appeal proceeds on the merits [2].
The underlying order came from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which on May 7 ruled the administration's 10% across-the-board surcharge unlawful under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 [1]. The government appealed to the Federal Circuit on May 8, one day after the CIT issued its ruling, and immediately moved for the administrative stay [2]. The government argued that allowing the injunction to take broad effect immediately would disrupt the orderly administration of the tariff system during the pendency of the appeal [2].
The stay carries a sharp practical consequence: the CIT's injunction now applies only to the three named plaintiffs in the underlying action [1]. All other importers, regardless of their commercial exposure to the 10% surcharge, must continue paying the tariff until the Federal Circuit resolves the appeal or otherwise modifies the stay [2]. Importers who believe they have refund claims cannot simply wait for a final appellate ruling. Practitioners have noted that preserving those claims requires affirmative steps, including the timely filing of protests with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and, where necessary, the filing of independent litigation before the CIT [1].
The legal uncertainty now extends across the full scope of the 10% surcharge program. The Federal Circuit must determine whether the CIT correctly read the limits of presidential authority under Section 122, a provision that grants the executive emergency tariff powers subject to specific statutory conditions and a congressional override mechanism [1]. That question has significant implications not only for the current surcharge but also for the boundaries of executive trade authority more broadly [2].
No briefing schedule for the merits appeal has been publicly announced. Importers with live exposure to the surcharge face a closing window to file protests and preserve refund rights through independent proceedings before any final judgment issues [1].