6/2/26 — DOJ Appeals CIT's Universal IEEPA Refund Injunction and Seeks Mandamus to Block CBP Commissioner's June 9 Testimony
On June 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice took three coordinated actions in V.O.S. Selections v. United States, CIT No. 25-00066, that together represent the most aggressive Executive Branch pushback to date against the Court of International Trade's universal IEEPA refund regime:
1. Notice of Appeal: The government appealed Judge Richard K. Eaton's April 17, 2026 injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
2. Petition for Writ of Mandamus. DOJ separately petitioned the Federal Circuit for mandamus relief, focused principally on quashing Judge Eaton's order compelling CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to testify in person at the CIT on June 9.
3. Motion for Stay. The government also sought a stay of the testimony order pending resolution of the mandamus petition, and signaled it will seek a stay of the universal injunctions from the Federal Circuit "if necessary."
The Universal-Injunction Challenge
In its mandamus petition, the government argues that Judge Eaton ordered universal injunctions covering all entries subject to IEEPA duties even though no importer-plaintiff had moved for preliminary injunctive relief. The government contends that the injunctions are "plainly unlawful under Trump v. CASA."
The CIT had reasoned that it was not bound by CASA because it was created under a different statute and granted exclusive national jurisdiction over particular categories of claims. DOJ rejects that view, noting that Congress expressly vested the CIT with "all the powers in law and equity of, or as conferred by statute upon, a district court of the United States," and arguing that the CIT therefore "cannot wield an equitable power to grant universal injunctions that district courts do not possess."
The Mandamus Petition: Blocking Commissioner Scott's Testimony
The centerpiece of the mandamus petition is the June 9 testimony order. DOJ argues Judge Eaton's order compelling Commissioner Scott's appearance is unlawful and violates settled precedent from multiple courts of appeals, citing the Federal Circuit's decision in In re United States.
Key points from the petition:
- High-ranking Executive Branch officials cannot be compelled to testify absent "extraordinary circumstances," where the official has "first-hand knowledge" unavailable from "other persons" and "essential to the case."
- Federal courts have issued mandamus to block compelled testimony of officials including the Vice President's chief of staff, the CFTC chairman, three FDIC directors, and the Railroad Retirement Board's inspector general, among others.
- Compelling Commissioner Scott's testimony would "take time away" from his duties and creates the very risks of "disrupting significant ongoing government activities" that warrant mandamus.
- The CIT failed to identify any extraordinary circumstance, any factual question on which Scott possesses unique firsthand knowledge, or any reason testimony from alternative witnesses would be insufficient.
- DOJ had offered to substitute Susan Thomas (CBP's Executive Assistant Commissioner for Trade) and Brandon Lord (CBP's Executive Director of the Trade Programs Directorate). Judge Eaton denied the substitution motion without explanation.
- The government warns that the trial court's apparent intent to "hector" the agency head over perceived shortcomings in IEEPA refund administration underscores serious separation-of-powers concerns.
DOJ also argues that Scott's testimony "is in no sense 'essential'" to the V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs' actual claims, and notes the plaintiffs themselves never sought it. Tellingly, the CIT's denial of the substitution motion stated the court was seeking information about CBP's intentions regarding "small importers" and other importers whose duties "currently cannot be processed by the CAPE program" — subjects DOJ says are untethered from the plaintiffs' pleaded claims.