UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 25-65

On February 3, 2025, private citizen Gary Barnes filed an action against the United States, challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Defendant United States filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of Article III standing. In Gary Barnes v. United States, Court No. 25-00043, Slip Op. 25-65 (May 23, 2025), Judge Choe-Groves granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Proclamation 10886, declaring a national emergency at the United States southern border with Mexico, citing threats posed by “cartels, criminal gangs, known terrorists, human traffickers, smugglers, unvetted military-age males from foreign adversaries, and illicit narcotics.” Proclamation 10886, 90 Fed. Reg. 8327 (Jan. 20, 2025). On February 1, 2025, the President expanded the scope of the national emergency to include Mexico, Canada, and China, and he imposed tariffs on goods imported from those countries. Exec. Order No. 14193, 90 Fed. Reg. 9113-16; Exec. Order No. 14194, 90 Fed. Reg. 9117-20; Exec. Order No. 14195, 90 Fed. Reg. at 9121-24. On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff Barnes filed a complaint with the CIT, stating that the tariffs “will adversely affect the household income of [himself] and all United States citizens.” (Pro Se Complaint, page 7 of 17).

The CIT granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s case based on lack of Article III standing. “Article III standing is a necessary component of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” (Slip Op. 25-65, citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992)). Standing requires “(1) that [the plaintiff] has suffered ‘an injury in fact,’ that is ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;’ (2) a ‘causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of;’ and (3) ‘it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” (Slip Op. page 13, citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62). “[I]njuries [that are] based on ‘the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law’ are abstract and cannot support Article III standing. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 482-83 (1982) (citing Schlesinger v. Reservist Comm. To Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 224 n.13 (1974).

In Slip-Op. 25-65, Judge Choe-Groves explained that Plaintiff Barnes’s alleged injury was indefinite, speculative, not particularized, and neither actual nor imminent. Because Plaintiff Barnes failed to satisfy the injury element of Article III standing, Judge Choe-Groves granted the United States’ motion to dismiss but noted that the dismissal was without prejudice and eligible for amendment and re-filing with the Court. By dismissing Plaintiff Barnes’s case without prejudice, Judge Choe-Groves left undecided the question of the constitutionality of President Trump’s tariffs