DC Circuit Sets Briefing Schedule for Emergency Stay Motion in IEEPA Tariff Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave plaintiffs in a case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act until June 4 to respond to the government's motion to stay the D.C. district court's ruling finding that IEEPA doesn't confer tariff-setting authority. The government then has until June 6 to respond, setting up an expedited schedule on which the appellate court will hear the emergency stay motion, which the U.S. has said is crucial for ongoing U.S. trade negotiations (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
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.
Last week, the D.C. federal district court declared all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under IEEPA to be illegal, ruling that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (see 2505290037). However, the judge limited the scope of relief to the two plaintiffs, importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, issuing a preliminary injunction against the collection of the tariffs only from the two companies.
A day before the D.C. court ruled, the Court of International Trade issued a permanent injunction against Trump's IEEPA trade action, vacating the president's executive orders implementing the moves (see 2505280068). The U.S. appealed both decisions, asking both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the D.C. Circuit for an emergency stay (see 2506020028).
Before the D.C. Circuit, the government said that despite the fact that the D.C. court's decision only covers the two plaintiffs, the ruling undermines the president's ability to negotiate trade deals and wield broader diplomatic power. In its decision, the D.C. court said these consequences would flow from the trade court's order, given the broader nature of its injunction. In response, the U.S. said any ruling calling the president's authority to impose the challenged tariffs into question harms U.S. negotiating efforts.