Amicus Tells DC Circuit Tariff Suit Belongs in CIT Since IEEPA Provides for 'Embargoes'
The America First Legal Foundation, an advocacy group aligned with President Donald Trump, argued that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia got the question of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction wrong in a case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Filing an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation provided an alternative basis for the appellate court to find that the case belongs at CIT: IEEPA provides for embargoes for reasons other than the "protection of the public health or safety" (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.
Central to the jurisdiction question is Section 1581(i), which says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. The D.C. federal district court held that since the case arises out of IEEPA and IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs, the case was properly before the D.C. court (see 2505290037).
Another section of Section 1581(i), however, says that only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws that provide for "embargoes ... for reasons other than the protection of the public health or safety." The foundation argued that this statute "imposes a form of categorical approach," through which all cases arising out of a statute providing for embargoes on certain bases, "whether the particular suit actually implicates embargoes," belongs at the trade court.
The amicus then argued that IEEPA is clearly a statute that provides for, among other things, embargoes to protect the U.S. economy. Since that means the statute "provides for embargoes for a reason other than public health and safety, and because Plaintiffs’ civil action arises from IEEPA, each requirement of § 1581(i)(1) is satisfied." So long as IEEPA authorizes an embargo for any reason other than public health and safety, "that is sufficient" to trigger the law, the brief said.
The foundation said the D.C. court seemingly said, in addressing this argument, that the approach is "incorrect because prior civil suits arising out of IEEPA were not uniformly brought in the Court of International Trade." In response, the amicus said other U.S. district courts have "uniformly transferred" other IEEPA tariff suits to CIT, and that no other court has addressed whether Section 1581(i)(1) applies to IEEPA.
The amicus brief also laid out its substantive arguments against the D.C. court ruling, which include claims that IEEPA's text and history clearly provide for tariffs and that other constitutional concerns, such as the major questions doctrine and nondelegation, don't invalidate the statute's grant of power to the president.