12 US States Lay Out Paths for Relief in IEEPA Tariffs Case
Twelve U.S. states, led by Oregon, filed a supplemental brief in their lawsuit against all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In it, the states said the Court of International Trade should enjoin enforcement of the IEEPA tariffs, set aside the agency decisions implementing the tariffs and declare the IEEPA tariffs "unlawful" (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
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 12 states filed their suit earlier this month, arguing that IEEPA doesn't allow the president to impose tariffs and that President Donald Trump failed to identify an "unusual and extraordinary" emergency in imposing the tariffs, among other things (see 2505080046). The court will hold a hearing on the states' arguments on May 21.
In a supplemental brief to the court, the states laid out what paths the court can take to grant the states their requested relief. First, the court could issue a permanent injunction against the imposition of tariffs under IEEPA. The brief said any harm the government may suffer as a result of this injunction in "ongoing trade negotiations" is the "direct result of the President’s unlawful actions and cannot justify denying relief here." To find otherwise "would eviscerate any incentive to comply with the law," the brief said.
In addition, the states urged the court to set aside the agency decisions implementing the tariffs. Every CBP decision implementing the duties "stems from the arrogation of executive authority where no statutory authority exists in the first instance, and the President’s emergency declaration does not meet the statutory predicates for the exercise of emergency powers at all," the brief said. As a result, this isn't a case where an agency can offer a "reasonable explanation for its decision" to correct an Administrative Procedure Act violation, the states said.
Lastly, the court could declare the tariffs unlawful. To achieve this outcome, the states wouldn't have to clear the ordinary four factors preceding an injunction but would only have to show the tariffs to be unlawful, the brief said.