California Says It's Moving for Preliminary Injunction in IEEPA Case
California became the next International Emergency Economic Powers Act plaintiff to prepare to move for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. It said May 13 it is providing notice it will be filing for an injunction on June 26 (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.
As previous parties have (see 2505080046 and 2504290057), the state said it expects to succeed on the merits of its claim because IEEPA doesn’t grant the president the authority to impose tariffs -- and if it does, the law is unconstitutional under the major questions doctrine.
It pointed out the statute doesn’t mention tariffs. It acknowledged that the law does allow the president to “regulate” imports, but said that this was a grant of authority distinct from the ability to levy tariffs based on the language of the statute itself.
“Indeed, Defendants cannot come up with an internally consistent construction of the word ‘regulate,’ and have taken the astonishing position that ‘regulate’ ‘need not carry the same meaning’ consistently within IEEPA,” it said.
After all, the law gives the president the power to “regulate” not just imports, but foreign acquisitions, holdings, withholdings, uses, transfers, withdrawals, transportation, exportation, dealings and rights, it said. If the law was read according to the government’s preferred interpretation, the president would have the power to tax all of those activities, not just importation. This would be a “tremendous and unheralded power,” it said.
Comparing the use of the term “regulate” in the statute, where it's a grant of authority to the president, to its use in the Constitution, where it's a grant of authority to the legislature, would require wrongly equating the two branches, it said.
Further, the major questions doctrine also bars IEEPA from providing tariff power to the president, it said, echoing prior arguments (see 2505130052).
The state also said California will be “especially” harmed by the tariffs. California purchases goods itself as a market participant, it said, and can’t pass higher costs on to consumers. It is already struggling to procure “basic items like computer equipment and medical supplies,” it said.
It is also losing substantial tax revenue as a result of the tariffs, it said.
“This harm will compound exponentially the longer the tariffs remain in effect,” it said.