DC IEEPA Plaintiffs, US Disagree on Mirroring CAFC's Briefing Schedule
Plaintiffs in the case challenging tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit proposed a briefing schedule that would end briefing on the same date as briefing is set to conclude in the IEEPA tariff case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. opposed the proposed schedule, urging the court to accept the schedule previously agreed to by the parties, which would end briefing on Aug. 8 (Learning Resources v. 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.
The plaintiffs, importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, suggested a briefing schedule that would see the government file its opening brief June 24, the plaintiffs file a response on July 8 and the U.S. file its ultimate reply on July 18. Recently, the Federal Circuit adopted the litigants' proposed briefing schedule that has the same dates as suggested by Learning Resources and Hand2Mind.
The Federal Circuit said it will hold oral argument on the IEEPA suit on July 31, giving each side 45 minutes for arguments, including rebuttal.
In light of the CAFC's briefing schedule, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind said the D.C. Circuit should adopt "the same or similar briefing schedule allowing for argument in this appeal no later than August 1, 2025." The importers specifically invoked the Federal Circuit's schedule, telling the D.C. Circuit that aligning the briefing schedules "will facilitate timely resolution and potential Supreme Court consideration of both cases together."
The importers said this "critical reason" is why they filed a motion to defer ruling on their motion to expedite the case until June 9 -- the date the Federal Circuit said it would decide the government's emergency motion to stay the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate the executive orders implementing all tariff action under IEEPA. "Otherwise the Supreme Court would risk not having a proper vehicle to resolve the merits of the exceptionally important and urgent issues presented," the importers said.
The government opposed the motion, arguing that the originally agreed-to schedule should be adopted and is best for "expeditious resolution of this appeal." The U.S. said that even assuming Supreme Court review is likely, there's "little basis to believe that the relatively modest differences between the previously agreed-upon briefing schedule here and the schedule adopted by the Federal Circuit will materially alter how quickly each case is resolved."
In any event, "other tools remain available if the Supreme Court concludes that it needs two cases before it because one faces a jurisdictional issue, including a writ of certiorari before judgment," the brief said.
The two appeals stem from lower court decisions invalidating the tariffs and are moving forward on different theories of jurisdiction (see 2505290040). The trade court said it has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 1581(i), which lets only CIT hear cases that arise out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. The court said this section is invoked, since the case arises out of modifications made to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which is a law of the U.S.
The D.C. court, meanwhile, said the cases arise out IEEPA and that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs, granting the D.C. court jurisdiction to hear the matter.