Litigation Challenges Legality of Section 122 Duties

JD Supra Trade Law

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

Twenty-four states and two private companies have filed lawsuits challenging the legality of Section 122 duties imposed on February 20, 2026. The complaints argue that the President lacks the authority to impose these duties, citing violations of separation of powers and nondelegation doctrines.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

On March 5, 2026, twenty-four states filed a complaint in the Court of International Trade (CIT) against the Trump Administration, challenging the legality of Section 122 duties imposed on February 20, 2026. The states argue that Section 122 was intended for temporary balance of payment crises, which do not exist in the modern currency system, and that the duties violate the separation of powers. They seek an injunction against U.S. Customs from collecting these duties and a refund of previously paid duties.

On March 9, 2026, two private companies filed a similar complaint, also alleging that the president lacks the authority to impose Section 122 duties due to the absence of a balance of payment issue and violations of the nondelegation doctrine. This litigation is expected to proceed rapidly, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Regulated entities, particularly importers and exporters, should monitor these developments as they could impact previously paid duties and future trade obligations.

What to do next

Monitor ongoing litigation regarding Section 122 duties.
Assess potential impact on previously paid Section 122 duties.
Review import documentation and tariff payments for Section 122 duties.

Penalties

Requests for refunds of previously paid Section 122 duties.

Source document (simplified)

March 11, 2026

New Litigation Challenging Legality of Section 122 Duties

Husch Blackwell LLP + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed On Friday, March 5, 2026, twenty-four (24) states filed a complaint in the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) against the Trump Administration challenging the legality of the Section 122 duties imposed on February 20th after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not permit the president to impose tariffs. For additional information about the Supreme Court’s decision and the Section 122 duties, see our prior blog posts here and here. The complaint alleges that the intent of Section 122 was to address a temporary balance of payment crisis—a crisis which cannot exist under the modern currency system. Specifically, the states allege that Section 122 duties violate the separation of powers and requested the CIT enjoin U.S. Customs from implementing and collecting the Section 122 duties. The complaint also requested that refunds of previously paid Section 122 duties be issued to the importers of records.

On Monday, March 9, 2026, two private companies represented by the Liberty Justice Center filed a similar complaint challenging the president’s authority to impose duties under Section 122. The complaint alleges that the president does not have the authority to impose duties under Section 122 because there is not an existing balance of payment issue and because the imposition of duties under Section 122 violate the nondelegation doctrine. The complaint specifically alleges that the duties violate the nondelegation doctrine because the interpretation of Section 122 is “the equivalent of the delegations the Supreme Court previously struck down” as it “provides no intelligible principal limiting the imposition of tariffs.” Burlap and Barrel v. Trump, 1:26-cv-01606 (CIT Mar. 9, 2026) at ¶¶ 123 and 127.

We anticipate that the Section 122 litigation will proceed on an expedited basis with an ultimate appeal up to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on the Section 122 litigation and will share further updates as available.

[View source.]

Send Print Report

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.

Written by:

Husch Blackwell LLP Contact + Follow more less

What do you want from legal thought leadership?

Please take our short survey – your perspective helps to shape how firms create relevant, useful content that addresses your needs:

Take the survey now »

Published In:

Appeals + Follow Constitutional Challenges + Follow Court of International Trade + Follow Customs and Border Protection + Follow International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) + Follow International Trade + Follow Non-Delegation Doctrine + Follow SCOTUS + Follow Separation of Powers + Follow State and Local Government + Follow Tariffs + Follow Trump Administration + Follow US Trade Policies + Follow Administrative Agency + Follow Constitutional + Follow International Trade + Follow more less

Husch Blackwell LLP on:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide