DOJ Wants Forced-Labor Tariff Relief Limited to Plaintiffs
DOJ wants plaintiff-only relief from forced-labor tariffs and asks the court to apply injunction rules to a remedy the Supreme Court left unresolved. The dispute concerns who benefits and what the plaintiffs must prove.
Primary lensTariff authority
Sub-topicForced-labor action
Evidence base6 records used
Use caseAuthority exposure review
DOJ wants any relief from the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs confined to the plaintiffs, even if USTR loses. Its September 4 brief also asks the Court of International Trade to subject the requested cancellation of USTR's action to the requirements for an injunction. That would change both who could benefit and what the plaintiffs must prove beyond an unlawful agency decision.
The distinction matters because the plaintiffs have asked for vacatur, a court order setting aside the agency action. DOJ invokes Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court's decision limiting universal injunctions, while acknowledging that CASA left the APA vacatur question open. The government is asking the trade court to decide that reserved question and extend injunction principles to the remedy sought here.
For in-house trade counsel advising an importer outside the Learning Resources sample case, the next document to prepare is a remedy-scope memorandum. It should distinguish the authority to set aside USTR's action from the reach of the order and the proof required to obtain it. The September 4 filing establishes none of those limits as law. CBP's published duty instructions remain the operating reference pending an applicable change.
The Plaintiffs Chose Vacatur
At page 51 of their August 24 motion, the plaintiffs ask the court to vacate USTR's final determination and order refunds with interest to the plaintiffs. Their footnote 42 explains why they did not separately seek an injunction in that motion. They contend that vacatur would take the tariffs off the books and remove the need for an injunction, reserving the right to address that need in reply if the government disagreed.
The refund request and the claimed effect of vacatur differ. Refunds are expressly requested for the plaintiffs. Setting aside the agency action is presented as removing the measure under which Customs collects the duties. A reader looking only at the refund request would miss the broader remedial premise.
DOJ challenges that premise at its statutory source. Section VI.B of its brief reads the APA's instruction to set aside unlawful action as a direction to disregard it when deciding a case, rather than an affirmative grant of power to vacate it. The government asks the CIT to reconsider whether Section 706(2) authorizes vacatur at all.
That is a separate dispute from the appropriateness of USTR's tariff rates. It concerns the court's remedial authority after a successful challenge to agency action.
CASA Reserved the APA Question
CASA's majority addressed the historical equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. It tied the permissible breadth of an injunction to what is necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs with standing. Its reasoning does not make every benefit to a nonparty impermissible. Most directly relevant here, opinion page 11, footnote 10, expressly leaves unresolved whether the APA authorizes federal courts to vacate agency action.
DOJ acknowledges that reservation before advancing an alternative argument. Even if vacatur is available, it says, vacating the action for parties and nonparties would function as a universal injunction and should be subject to the same limits. Rejecting DOJ's first argument would therefore leave its second argument for the court to consider. Neither the availability of vacatur nor the beneficiaries of a particular order can be inferred from CASA alone.
The government also raises a distinct limit concerning which actions the plaintiffs can challenge. It links the economies from which the sample plaintiffs allege imports to their standing and USTR's country-specific severability language. That argument concerns the affected tariff actions. It must remain separate from the question of whether relief concerning a given action extends to other importers. Both are government positions in Section VI.C, awaiting the court's treatment.
An Injunction Test Would Change the Required Proof
Section VII of DOJ's brief presses a consequence beyond the number of beneficiaries. The government argues that the requested vacatur is effectively an injunction because it would stop CBP from assessing the challenged duties. On that basis, it demands proof of irreparable injury, inadequate remedies at law, a favorable balance of hardships and consistency with the public interest, as well as success on the merits.
DOJ says the plaintiffs supplied no declaration and failed to develop an irreparable-harm argument. It also disputes their ability to reserve the injunction issue for reply. These are objections to the plaintiffs' presentation, not findings that the court has adopted.
If the court accepts this approach, evidence establishing a defect in USTR's reasoning would not finish the plaintiffs' showing. They would also need to satisfy the remedial requirements the court found applicable. The reply's treatment of footnote 42 therefore matters independently of its defense of the merits. It can show whether the plaintiffs continue to rely on the distinction between vacatur and injunction or also address the government's demands for equitable proof.
Separate the Questions in the Remedy Memorandum
The following comparison records the disputed requests as of September 8. It applies to an importer outside the sample case and does not describe relief already granted. The sources are DOJ's Sections VI through VIII and CASA's express APA reservation.
Question
DOJ's requested answer
What counsel must locate in a ruling
Is vacatur authorized
Section 706(2) supplies no vacatur remedy
The court's statutory interpretation, if reached
Who benefits if it is available
Relief should be party-specific
Beneficiaries identified by the operative order
What proof is required
Traditional injunction requirements apply
The test the court adopts and the showing it accepts
Which tariff actions are affected
Relief should track standing and severable country actions
The actions and entries covered by the order
An earlier branch could keep these questions from controlling the immediate outcome. DOJ first seeks judgment sustaining USTR's actions. If the court finds APA defects, it requests remand without vacatur, allowing further agency explanation while the action remains operative. A court taking that course could leave the broader dispute unresolved.
The sample-case order selected Learning Resources and stayed the other cases assigned to the panel. As the earlier analysis of that order explains, case management does not itself grant tariff relief to other importers.
Under the briefing schedule, amicus briefs are due September 11 and the plaintiffs' reply September 18. Those filings can sharpen the competing positions. The memorandum should change its assessment of governing law when a ruling addresses the disputed authority or test, and its assessment of the company's tariff treatment when an operative order or implementing action reaches the company and its entries.
From reading to review
Run the numbers on your lane.
The duty calculator runs the current stack for any HTS code and origin. A free account opens full tool output, AD/CVD detail, Chapter 98 processing, and available exports.