IEEPA Suit at CIT Assigned to Judges Katzmann, Reif, Restani
The lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs has been assigned to a three-judge panel. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani will hear the case, according to an order from CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
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 suit was brought on behalf of five importers by the conservative Liberty Justice Center to challenge both Trump's use of the IEEPA and the statute itself, saying first that the action is a violation of his authority granted under the statute, then that the law as a source of tariff-setting authority is an unconstitutional delegation of power (see 2504150043). The case is one of four so far filed against the IEEPA tariffs, though only the Liberty Justice Center suit was brought before the trade court.
The trade court ordinarily only assigns one judge to hear cases, though it often assigns three-judge panels to cases of greater significance. For instance, the court assigned three judges to many cases challenging trade action from the first Trump administration, including for the massive lawsuit challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs.
Katzmann and Restani both sat on panels in cases challenging the previous Trump administration's tariff authority. Restani penned a decision in 2020 finding that Trump's proclamation raising Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum products from Turkey violated the statute's procedures and the "Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under law," though this decision was ultimately overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.