4 ms·

Of course it's worth noting that CBP repeatedly argued in its previous court filings that there was no need for an injunction to halt the tariffs while they wer

Of course it's worth noting that CBP repeatedly argued in its previous court filings that there was no need for an injunction to halt the tariffs while they were being litigated, because if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, it could easily refund them. For instance: > In other words, plaintiffs’ asserted irreparable harm is the purported inability to obtain a refund after a final and unappealable decision because of liquidation. But that asserted harm is nonexistent here because defendants have made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that they will not object to the Court ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful. Because defendants’ representations make clear that liquidation will not interfere with the availability of refunds after a final decision, plaintiffs cannot be irreparably harmed by liquidation. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17270/gov.uscourts.cit.17270.25.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.172...

anigbrowl 8mo ago
I noted that too. We need some mechanism in litigation (and imho in public life in general) that requires claims to be secured in some way. That is, if you go into court and make an argument like this, you have to chain it to consequences, such as being stripped of specific legal consequences or losing 10% of your shares or whatever. It's illegal to commit perjury, but there are no real consequences for making bous legal arguments, and lawyers are structurally incentivized to make tacit misrepresentations on behalf of their clients - that is, to make inflated or handwavey claims in the hope that they're not challenged during the fact-finding stage, or even stipulated, due to an assumption of basic good faith.
johnbarron 7mo ago
Its because they would have to refund China...because...you know...China has been paying the tariffs...
aw1621107 7mo ago
> because if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, it could easily refund them. I think it's worth emphasizing that the US government argued not only that it could issue refunds, but that it would issue refunds and that it would not oppose an order to do so. In addition to the quote from the US government's opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction, there are these quotes mentioned in the opinion for the linked order [0]: > [E]ven if future entries are liquidated, defendants do not intend to oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation.... Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest. > Defendants “will not oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the challenged IEEPA duties and that they will refund any IEEPA duties found to have been unlawfully collected, after a final and unappealable decision has been issued finding the duties to have been unlawfully collected and ordering defendants to refund the duties.” > “If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues.” > For any plaintiff who is an importer, even if a stay is entered and defendants do not prevail on appeal, plaintiffs will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest. ‘[T]here is virtually no risk’ to any importer that they ‘would not be made whole’ should they prevail on appeal. The most ‘harm’ that could incur would be a delay in collecting on deposits. This harm is, by definition, not irreparable. Plaintiffs will not lose their entitlement to a refund, plus interest, if the preliminary injunction is stayed, and they are guaranteed payment by defendants should the [c]ourt’s decision be upheld. And defendants do not oppose the reliquidation of any entries of goods subject to IEEPA duties paid by plaintiffs that are ultimately found to be unlawful after appeal. > To the extent that any future entries are liquidated, the [c]ourt may order reliquidation of entries subject to the challenged de minimis exemption if the duties paid by Axle are, in a final and unappealable decision, found to have been unlawfully collected. Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest. [0]: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf

anigbrowl 8mo ago

I noted that too. We need some mechanism in litigation (and imho in public life in general) that requires claims to be secured in some way. That is, if you go into court and make an argument like this, you have to chain it to consequences, such as being stripped of specific legal consequences or losing 10% of your shares or whatever. It's illegal to commit perjury, but there are no real consequences for making bous legal arguments, and lawyers are structurally incentivized to make tacit misrepresentations on behalf of their clients - that is, to make inflated or handwavey claims in the hope that they're not challenged during the fact-finding stage, or even stipulated, due to an assumption of basic good faith.

johnbarron 7mo ago

Its because they would have to refund China...because...you know...China has been paying the tariffs...

aw1621107 7mo ago

> because if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, it could easily refund them. I think it's worth emphasizing that the US government argued not only that it could issue refunds, but that it would issue refunds and that it would not oppose an order to do so. In addition to the quote from the US government's opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction, there are these quotes mentioned in the opinion for the linked order [0]: > [E]ven if future entries are liquidated, defendants do not intend to oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation.... Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest. > Defendants “will not oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the challenged IEEPA duties and that they will refund any IEEPA duties found to have been unlawfully collected, after a final and unappealable decision has been issued finding the duties to have been unlawfully collected and ordering defendants to refund the duties.” > “If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues.” > For any plaintiff who is an importer, even if a stay is entered and defendants do not prevail on appeal, plaintiffs will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest. ‘[T]here is virtually no risk’ to any importer that they ‘would not be made whole’ should they prevail on appeal. The most ‘harm’ that could incur would be a delay in collecting on deposits. This harm is, by definition, not irreparable. Plaintiffs will not lose their entitlement to a refund, plus interest, if the preliminary injunction is stayed, and they are guaranteed payment by defendants should the [c]ourt’s decision be upheld. And defendants do not oppose the reliquidation of any entries of goods subject to IEEPA duties paid by plaintiffs that are ultimately found to be unlawful after appeal. > To the extent that any future entries are liquidated, the [c]ourt may order reliquidation of entries subject to the challenged de minimis exemption if the duties paid by Axle are, in a final and unappealable decision, found to have been unlawfully collected. Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest. [0]: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf