US Defends Bid to Move Montana IEEPA Case to Trade Court
The U.S. defended its bid to transfer a case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 232 to the Court of International Trade, arguing that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs' convenience in keeping the suit in Montana is "irrelevant" to CIT's jurisdiction. Filing a reply brief on April 16, the government said the plaintiffs, four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe, "ignore or misunderstand" CIT's "specialized nature and the fact that that court may also review the implementation of executive orders in cases within its jurisdiction" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
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 Blackfeet Nation members sued earlier this month to challenge the IEEPA tariffs imposed on Canada to address fentanyl flows, the adjustment to these tariffs by the reciprocal IEEPA duties and Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs (see 2504100039). The U.S. moved to transfer the case to CIT on the grounds that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Blackfeet Nation members replied, arguing that the national emergencies declared by the president to impose the tariffs don't relate to trade (see 2504150022). The brief also said IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs, placing it beyond the reach of the trade court's Section 1581(i) jurisdiction, since it's not a law providing for tariff-making authority. The Blackfeet Nation members also said the case should stay in Montana for their convenience and that timely relief would be thwarted by moving the case.
In response, the U.S. said the Blackfeet Nation members ignore 28 U.S.C. § 1337, "which divests this Court of jurisdiction for 'any matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade,' and binding Supreme Court precedent holding that" when one of CIT's exclusive jurisdictional grants applies, all others are divested. The government said the plaintiffs have no response to the U.S. claim that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over any claims regarding Section 232, as supported by a large number of challenges to Section 232 action under the first Trump administration.
Regarding whether CIT has jurisdiction to hear IEEPA cases, the government pointed to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decision finding the trade court's predecessor to properly have jurisdiction over a case on the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor. That this court got it wrong "is especially doubtful because Congress later expanded the scope of the Court of International Trade’s jurisdiction when adopting § 1581(i)," the U.S. said. The government added that plaintiffs' claim would mean the trade court is "currently exceeding its jurisdiction" in hearing two other cases on the IEEPA tariffs.
And while the Blackfeet Nation members claim that IEEPA doesn't provide the president with tariff-making authority, thus stripping CIT of jurisdiction, the U.S. said this goes to the merits of the plaintiffs' case. "The Court need not and should not answer it in deciding whether to transfer the case," the brief said. "When it comes to jurisdiction, the Court is bound by Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction over the permissibility of tariffs imposed under a statute with the operative phrase 'regulate … importation.'"
The U.S. added that the Blackfeet Nation's convenience arguments "fare no better." The trade court can sit anywhere in the country, making the plaintiffs' concerns about "travel to New York" "misplaced" and irrelevant, the brief said. "But even if equitable considerations could have any relevance to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, litigating all challenges to the President’s tariffs in a single forum with nationwide jurisdiction will obviate the enormous risk for confusion and disruption that would result from consideration by multiple district courts," the government said.