Jurisdiction for IEEPA Tariff Suit Proper in Florida, Plaintiff's Attorney Says
Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed its complaint last week, arguing that President Donald Trump's use of IEEPA to impose 20% tariffs on all goods from China violates the U.S. Constitution (see 2504040036) (Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464). The advocacy group stated three constitutional and statutory claims against the tariffs and one claim that the tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act for unlawfully modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
One of the claims said that IEEPA can't be used to impose tariffs, noting that the law has never been used as a source of this authority in its 48-year history.
This claim likely rests at the heart of Simplified's claim for jurisdiction in Florida. At CIT, the case would most likely fall under Section 1581(i), which is the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Under this law, CIT has jurisdiction over any civil matter brought against the U.S. that "arises out of any law of the United States providing for" tariffs.
Morris said "the president ordered these tariffs by invoking a statute that is not a tariff statute and doesn't authorize tariffs, and so that didn't put us in the Court of International Trade." The claim for jurisdiction thus only runs so far as a judge at the Florida court finds legal validity in the group's substantive claim that IEEPA can't be used to impose tariffs.
Asked whether he would refile at CIT should the case be dismissed from the Florida court, Morris declined to speculate, adding that he believes the case is on "pretty sound ground."
Morris said the case was ultimately filed in Pensacola, Florida, because that is where Simplified is located, dismissing the notion that the Florida court was picked over CIT for forum-shopping reasons. Morris said that filing in Florida was not an attempt to avoid litigating before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in light of the New Civil Liberties Alliance's representation of CAFC Judge Pauline Newman's case against three of her colleagues for their investigation into Newman's fitness to continue serving at the court.
Regarding the substance of the lawsuit, Morris emphasized that Simplified's case is only seeking a revocation of the executive orders imposing tariffs on China under IEEPA, despite the recent use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all countries in the world. However, he noted that "the same defect exists in all of these Executive Orders that are based on IEEPA." While relief from all of them is not being sought, "the consequence would be pretty obvious" if Simplified were to succeed in its lawsuit, Morris said.
The attorney also suggested that should any of the IEEPA tariffs on China be removed or paused due to negotiations with Beijing, the case likely would proceed on the grounds that the constitutional and statutory violations are susceptible to repetition yet evading review. While the ultimate posture of Simplified in the case will depend on the facts, Morris said a delay in or removal of the tariffs "should not moot the issue we've been looking at."