DC IEEPA Plaintiffs Petition SCOTUS to Review Legality of IEEPA Tariffs
Two importers challenging tariffs imposed under the international Emergency Economic Powers Act, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, petitioned the Supreme Court June 17 to hear their case in a bid to accelerate the resolution of the challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs. The companies, represented by Akin Gump, said the high court should hear the case now in "light of the tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
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.
So far in the case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs (see 2505290037), though the court stayed its decision pending appeal in light of the massive effect the ruling would have on U.S. foreign policy efforts (see 2506030048). The U.S. appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where the parties are currently sparring over the precise dates of an expedited briefing schedule (see 2506130029).
Concurrently, a separate appeal on the IEEPA tariffs is proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all executive orders implementing the IEEPA tariffs (see 2505280068).
Learning Resources and Hand2Mind argued that the Supreme Court should take up their case, since it presents a question of "imperative public importance": "Whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose tariffs -- and thereby unilaterally reshape the national economy and global trade policy." The importers said their appeal would solely concern whether IEEPA confers tariff-setting authority, the sole issue the U.S. has said is justiciable.
The companies said the high court has recently agreed to hear other cases prior to appellate judgment "of similar national importance and 'staggering' economic and political significance." This court should hear the case to "decide that dispositive legal question now," the petition said.
Only the high court can "rule with the necessary authority to resolve" the important questions raised by the suit, the petition said. The question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs "is well ventilated in the district court’s thorough opinion and the ample briefing to date across multiple cases," the importers said. Deciding this question has the added benefit of resolving the dispute on whether the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case, which is an issue that potentially turns on whether IEEPA provides for tariffs, the importers said.
The companies argued that there's "no reason to delay," adding that the costs of waiting for full decisions from the D.C. and Federal circuits "far outweigh any benefits." Hearing the case now will let the Supreme Court "order briefing to be completed in advance of this Court’s first argument session for the October 2025 Term -- or even for a special early sitting in September."
Learning Resources and Hand2Mind added that the fact that they prevailed before the D.C. court isn't a bar to granting certiorari before judgment, "either as a statutory or constitutional matter." The high court can review cases "in the courts of appeal" upon a "petition for certiorari before judgment by 'any party to any civil or criminal case,'" the importers noted, adding that this language "covers petitions brought by litigants who have prevailed, as well as those who have lost, in the court below."