In a per curiam order, the Federal Circuit ruled that that the tariffs imposed under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 could continue to be collected. The order was in response to a motion to stay the judgment of the Court of International Trade, which had ruled the tariffs were unlawful back in May. (For previous TaxProf Blog coverage of this case, see this post analyzing the challenge and this post summarizing the judgment.) The Federal Circuit analyzed the motion under the traditional stay factors (likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, likelihood of injury to third parties, and the public interest) and found, inter alia, that the government was likely to success on the merits. Here’s the court’s analysis:

We conclude that the federal government has made a sufficient showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. Although we do not offer our own interpretation of Section 122 at this stage, we are persuaded by the federal government’s argument that the CIT majority’s interpretation—that “balance-of-payments deficit[ ]” is limited to deficits measured by liquidity, official settlements, or basic balance—may be incorrect. We find that the legislative history cited by the federal government and the CIT dissent strongly call into question the conclusion that Congress intended “balance-of-payments deficit[ ]” to be measured only by the three methods enumerated by the CIT majority. Given that the legislative history contains ample support for the federal government’s proposed gloss, we do not agree that the legislative history provides a clear indication that Congress intended the CIT majority’s narrow interpretation nor that it is the best reading. We are not persuaded at this time by plaintiffs’ arguments that broader readings of the statute would pose nondelegation concerns. There is merit to the federal government’s argument that Section 122 already contains the guardrails required by the nondelegation doctrine such that it is not necessary to set out precise “balance-of-payments deficit[ ]” measurement methods for the statute to survive challenge. This factor therefore favors the federal government.

(Citations omitted.)