US Supports Transfer of California IEEPA Dispute to CIT
In seeking transfer of an International Emergency Economic Powers Act case to the Court of International Trade, the U.S. said May 8 that such a transfer is necessary even when “there is doubt” about CIT’s jurisdiction. If a case’s merits must be decided first, this would “effectively” destroy CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction over tariff matters, it said (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
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 U.S. has attempted to move several IEEPA challenges to CIT recently and faced pushback from plaintiffs (see 2505060017). It succeeded in having one case transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (see 2504250063).
Its May 8 reply brief responded to the state of California (see 2505020038). In it, the government claimed that California had focused only three pages of its brief on the actual motion to transfer. The rest of its reply had been dedicated to “the wrong question” -- whether IEEPA grants the president the power to levy tariffs, it said.
CIT has jurisdiction because “Section 1581(i) is a ‘broad jurisdictional grant,’” it said. It claimed the Supreme Court has found Section 1581(i) grants CIT jurisdiction in all matters “relating to” issues listed in the “providing for” language, citing K Mart Corp. v. Cartier.
Precedent in the 9th Circuit also requires transfer, it said. It cited cases heard under a prior jurisdictional grant and court, Cornet Stores v. Morton and United States v. Yoshida. Since those cases were litigated, CIT’s jurisdiction has actually expanded, it claimed.
At the very least, it said, the jurisdictional issue itself should go to CIT -- “and the Federal Circuit in due course.”
It argued again that IEEPA does grant the president the authority to impose tariffs. It said Congress didn’t have to “incant magic words” to clearly define a presidential grant of authority in a statute. And IEEPA’s language clearly borrows “key language” from its predecessor, the Trading With the Enemy Act, which the court held did provide the president tariff powers in Yoshida.
“The Supreme Court, and others, have repeatedly recognized the close relationship between the substantive powers conferred by IEEPA and TWEA,” it said.
And IEEPA, it said, was drafted to give the president broad powers with which to respond to a national emergency.