On 7 May 2026 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade — sitting under 28 U.S.C. § 255(a) on a revenue-statute case within the CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(B) — held by a 2-1 majority in The State of Oregon v. United States, Court No. 26-01472, consolidated with Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 26-01606, Slip Op. 26-47, that Proclamation 11012’s 10 percent import surcharge exceeds the President’s authority under § 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: the proclamation’s recital of the U.S. goods trade deficit does not satisfy any of the three statutory triggers in 19 U.S.C. § 2132(a).¹²³ Chief Judge Mark A. Barnett and Judge Claire R. Kelly signed the majority opinion jointly; Judge Timothy C. Stanceu dissented. The panel granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction against collection of the surcharge from three plaintiffs — the State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel, Inc., and Basic Fun, Inc. — dismissed the remaining 23 state plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Oregon, for lack of standing, and expressly declined nationwide relief in light of the universal-injunction constraints of Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025).¹⁴ Section 2132(a) authorises the President to impose an ad valorem surcharge of up to 15 percent only to deal “with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,” to “prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets,” or to “cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of- payments disequilibrium”; a persistent goods trade deficit is not equivalent to a balance-of-payments deficit (which encompasses the current and capital accounts together) and does not by itself satisfy the dollar-depreciation or international- cooperation triggers.⁵ The administration imposed the § 122 surcharge effective 24 February 2026 under Proclamation 11012 of 20 February 2026, signed the same day the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., No. 25-250, that IEEPA does not authorise the President to impose tariffs.⁶⁷

1. The injunction’s direct effect is confined to the three prevailing plaintiffs; U.S. Customs and Border Protection continues to collect the surcharge at HTSUS Chapter 99 subchapter III subheading 9903.03.01 (implemented by CSMS

   67844987) from all other importers.⁸

   For any refunds that follow from the ruling or its appeal, the statutory chain is 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (protests against decisions of the Customs Service) within the 180-day window of § 1514(c)(3); § 1520 (refunds and errors); and § 1505(c) (interest on refunds, accruing from date of deposit).⁹

2. The government’s appeal lies to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5), with a 60-day notice-of-appeal window under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B).¹⁰ The government may move for a stay of the CIT judgment pending appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 and FRAP 8(a)(2), with the Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009), four-factor test governing the merits of the stay motion; absent a stay, the injunction is operative as to the three prevailing plaintiffs.¹¹ Supreme Court Rule 11 cert before judgment is available if the United States seeks immediate SCOTUS review, following the procedural posture of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump in the IEEPA arc.

3. With IEEPA held not to authorise tariffs on 20 February 2026 and the § 122 surcharge held unlawful on 7 May 2026, the administration’s remaining tariff authorities are § 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. § 1862 (requiring a Commerce Department national- security investigation under § 1862(b)(3)(A) and presidential action under § 1862(c)(1)), and § 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2411 (requiring a USTR investigation under § 2414(a)(2)).¹²¹³ The 11 March 2026 § 301 investigations covering 16 trading partners advance on the statutory timeline (see USTR launches Section 301 investigations of 16 trading partners). Pre-existing § 232 duties on steel, aluminum and autos and § 301 duties on Chinese goods continue to be collected at their current HTSUS subheadings.

Corrections

• 2026-09-24: The post placed the 150-day limit on § 122 surcharges at 19 U.S.C. § 2132(b) and described an extension by joint resolution under § 2132(d). The 15 percent cap, the 150-day limit and extension “by Act of Congress” are all in § 2132(a); § 2132(b) is the national-interest exception and § 2132(d) concerns nondiscriminatory treatment.⁵