It seems like just yesterday I was wading through the initial court filings about the absolutely massive combined lawsuit that multiple companies including Costco and Kawasaki have lodged with the US International Trade Court. And truthfully, that's because it was just last week when I wrote it up.
It is now December 15 as I write this, and everyone involved in this case is trying their best to move it forward ahead of the customary break for the holidays. So honestly, I won't be at all surprised if I have even more updates for you before the end of the year.
Remember how the attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction last week, which would temporarily suspend the US CBP from what's called 'final liquidation' of the tariffs paid while the entirety of the case is under consideration? The plaintiffs' arguments were basically that they questioned whether they'd be able to get those funds back if the Supreme Court, in the case it's currently considering about whether the IEEPA tariffs are lawful to begin with, ultimately decides that they're unlawful. Also, the plaintiffs argued, they felt that it could potentially cause them 'irreparable harm.'
To which the CBP's legal counsel argued back that of course it would refund the money if the ITC said that it had to. (I mean, and I can't possibly stress this enough: I'm not a lawyer of any kind, but what else were they going to say? In legalese, of course. Always in legalese.)
Anyway, there are a couple of new documents (one a response; one a decision from the judges) to tell you about as of December 15, 2025. We'll take the document first, which is a response from the plaintiffs' lawyers to what the CBP lawyers had to say at the end of last week.
This document basically attempts to argue back against every reason the CBP lawyers gave regarding why they felt the Court should deny the request for a preliminary injunction. Funnily enough, its statements aren't that dissimilar to the commentary I included in my first piece, only spelled out in a more formal, court-appropriate fashion. The lawyers for the plaintiffs state that they find it "hard to put faith in the Government's claim that implementing a suspension of liquidation is burdensome," and also add that "nor is this a case of delay."
This section concludes with the absolute banger of a line, "the prophylactic relief Plaintiffs seek is both available and routine in this Court and the ordinary mechanism for preventing the potential prejudice of liquidation in the first instance." Further arguments to buttress the Plaintiffs claims call the Government's proposed alternative "far more burdensome than the requested injunction," and also offer the observation that it is "narrow, workable, and fully aligned with CBP's established practices."
Sounds promising, right? Except no, apparently, it wasn't.
The US International Trade Court Has Just Shut Down The Preliminary Injunction Request
Now, before you get mad, that's not the entire complaint; just the motion for a preliminary injunction that would temporarily suspend liquidation of the tariffs for the plaintiffs in question, until a decision can be reached by the Court on whether they're legal or not.
The three-judge US International Trade Court panel that is hearing this case filed an eight-page opinion and order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction on December 15, 2025. In its conclusion, it states that "this court has the authority to order reliquidation in cases involving constitutional challenges to duties ... accordingly, we find that Plaintiffs are not at risk of experiencing irreparable harm as a result of liquidation. Having found no irreparable harm, the court need not consider the remaining preliminary injunction factors." It then goes on to say that "Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Plaintiffs' motion for a hearing is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED."
Once again, that's not the whole ball game; what will happen next is anyone's guess. We'll be sure to keep you posted as new developments arise.
