US Says CIT Judges' Comments at Hearing Confirm CIT Jurisdiction Over IEEPA Tariffs Suits
The U.S. told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the Court of International Trade's recent hearing in the lead case on the use of International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs bolsters its bid to transfer a similar case in the D.C. court to the trade court (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
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 government noted that during the hearing, CIT Judge Gary Katzmann opened the proceeding by declaring that it's "indeed appropriate that we are meeting here in a courthouse in New York, a national courthouse with exclusive jurisdiction” (see 2505130052). Katzmann added that the three-judge panel was assigned to the case, since it's an "action that raises an issue of the constitutionality of [an] act of [Congress] or proclamation of the President or an executive order or has broader significant implications in the administration or interpretation of the customs laws.”
In a footnote, the U.S. noted that CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett, in assigning the three judges to the case, invoked 28 U.S.C. Section 255. The statute says the court "shall designate" a three-judge panel to resolve a case that raises an "issue of the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, a proclamation of the President or an Executive order” or “has broad or significant implications in the administration or interpretation of the customs laws.”
The D.C. case was brought on behalf of two small importers by Akin Gump and is one of four cases challenging the IEEPA tariffs brought in a district court outside of the trade court (see 2505090001). In all four, the U.S. has filed motions to transfer the cases to CIT.