V.o.s. Selections, Inc., Plastic Services v. Donald J. Trump

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC., PLASTIC SERVICES
AND PRODUCTS, LLC, dba Genova Pipe,
MICROKITS, LLC, FISHUSA INC., TERRY
PRECISION CYCLING LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as Pres-
ident of the United States, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES, PETE R.
FLORES, Acting Commissioner for United States
Customs and Border Protection, in his official ca-
pacity as Acting Commissioner of the United States
Customs and Border Protection, JAMIESON
GREER, in his official capacity as United States
Trade Representative, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, HOWARD
LUTNICK, in his official capacity as Secretary of
Commerce, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________
2025-1812
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:25-cv-00066-GSK-TMR-JAR, Judge Gary S.

-- 1 of 4 --

V. O . S . SELECTIONS , INC. v. TRUMP 2
Katzmann, Judge Timothy M. Reif, and Senior Judge Jane
A. Restani.
-------------------------------------------------
STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE
OF COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF ILLINOIS,
STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE
OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, STATE OF
NEW YORK, STATE OF VERMONT,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland Security, in
her official capacity as Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
AND BORDER PROTECTION, PETE R. FLORES,
Acting Commissioner for United States Customs
and Border Protection, in his official capacity as
Acting Commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, UNITED STATES,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________
2025-1813
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:25-cv-00077-GSK-TMR-JAR, Judge Gary S.
Katzmann, Judge Timothy M. Reif, and Senior Judge Jane
A. Restani.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________

-- 2 of 4 --

V. O . S . SELECTIONS , INC. v. TRUMP 3
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, D YK , PROST, REYNA ,
TARANTO , CHEN , H UGHES , STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and
STARK , Circuit Judges.1
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
The United States’s motions for a stay of the United
States Court of International Trade’s rulings enjoining cer-
tain Executive Orders imposing tariffs, the Plaintiffs-Ap-
pellees’ oppositions, and the United States’s reply were
presented to all circuit judges of this court in regular active
service who are not recused or disqualified. Both sides
have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having
considered the traditional stay factors, see Fed. R. App. P.
8; Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009), the court con-
cludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances. See
also Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1415, 1415
(2025) (per curiam) (“The purpose of . . . interim equitable
relief is not to conclusively determine the rights of the par-
ties, but to balance the equities as the litigation moves for-
ward.” (quoting Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project,
582 U.S. 571, 580 (2017)). The court also concludes that
these cases present issues of exceptional importance war-
ranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in
the first instance.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The motions for a stay pending appeal are granted.
(2) All motions for leave to file briefs amicus curiae re-
garding the stay motions are granted.
(3) These consolidated cases will be heard en banc un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 46 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
1 Circuit Judge Newman did not participate.

-- 3 of 4 --

V. O . S . SELECTIONS , INC. v. TRUMP 4
40(g). The court en banc shall consist of all circuit judges
in regular active service who are not recused or disqualified
in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 46(c).
(4) Within two business days from the issuance of this
order, the parties are directed to jointly file a proposed ex-
pedited briefing schedule. The proposed briefing schedule
should allow for this court to hold oral argument on July
31, 2025 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 201. If the parties
cannot agree upon a schedule, the joint submission should
include the parties’ alternative proposals.
June 10, 2025
Date
FOR THE C OURT

-- 4 of 4 --