US Opposes Importers' Bid to Have SCOTUS Hear IEEPA Tariff Suit Before Appellate Court Judgment
The U.S. opposed two importers' bid to have the Supreme Court hear their challenge to the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has a chance to hear the case. The government argued that the high court shouldn't step in before either the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has had a chance to address the claims against the IEEPA tariffs, particularly since both courts are hearing the appeals on very expedited timelines (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.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the case from importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind was especially improper for high court review given that the threshold issue in the case is whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction. Since the importers' case properly belonged before the Court of International Trade, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia improperly ruled on the importers' claims, the U.S. said.
The government also dove into the merits of Learning Resources' and Hand2Mind's arguments. In opposing the cert petition, the U.S. argued that the IEEPA's language, which lets the president "regulate ... importation," clearly allows tariffs; the major questions doctrine is "inapposite" for many reasons; and there are no nondelegation doctrine concerns given that this doctrine plays less of a role in the realms of "national security and foreign policy" than in the "domestic sphere."
In May, the D.C. district court held that IEEPA categorically doesn't let the president impose tariffs, holding that the D.C. court and not CIT has jurisdiction to hear the case, since the trade court only has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs, and IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (see 2505290037). In its ruling on the case, CIT said it has exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to IEEPA tariffs, since the cases arise out of President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs, which modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The HTS' statute says presidential action modifying the HTS are laws of the U.S. for jurisdictional purposes (see 2506250037).
Before the Supreme Court, the U.S. echoed the trade court's discussion of its jurisdiction. The government argued that the case truly "rises out of" Trump's executive orders modifying the HTS, claiming that the "crux" of the importers' claim is that they must pay additional tariffs due to the orders and the HTS modifications. The importers seek a declaration that the HTS modifications made by the orders "are unlawful," an injunction against their enforcement and an order setting aside the modifications, the U.S. said.
The government added that in giving CIT exclusive jurisdiction, "Congress prioritized national uniformity of judicial decisionmaking in this specialized domain." That decision reflects the importance of eliminating conflicting decisions in trade from different courts and ensuring "expeditious decisions in matters which are important both to our country and to our trading partners."
The D.C. court also collapsed the jurisdictional issue with the merits of the case into a single inquiry, the U.S. noted. The Supreme Court has "cautioned against interpreting jurisdictional statutes in a way that" would make a court's jurisdiction "dependent upon the merits of the claim," and for good reason, the government argued. "Where Congress has provided for review of a class of cases in a particular court, 'it would be nonsensical to say that the jurisdiction of the reviewing body is limited to instances in which the underlying decision construes and applies the statute correctly,'" the brief said.
The U.S. also defended the IEEPA tariffs on the merits, arguing that the statute's plain text lets the president impose tariffs. In addition, the government said the major questions doctrine, which says the executive must have an explicit delegation from Congress when regulating an issue of major political or economic significance, is "inapposite" for many reasons, the first of which is that the doctrine only applies in the "domestic sphere." The doctrine "has not been applied by this Court in the national security or foreign policy contexts, because the canon does not reflect ordinary congressional intent in those areas," the brief said.
In fact, Congress ordinarily intends to give the president "substantial authority and flexibility to protect America and the American people," indicating that it delegates power broadly in the realm of foreign policy. The president must respond to "ever-changing national security threats and diplomatic challenges," and, in doing just that, presidents have long imposed tariffs under "generally worded statutes and their inherent constitutional authority," the brief said.
The government also said the major questions doctrine has only ever been used in response to delegations of power to federal agencies and never the president, and that it only applies where there's a "mismatch" between the "breadth of the asserted power" and the narrowness of the statute in which the agency "claims to have discovered it." The U.S. said no such mismatch exists here, since "IEEPA addresses national emergencies (the most important of circumstances) and directly authorizes the President (the most important person in government) to take certain actions in response to those emergencies."
The Learning Resources and Hand2Mind nondelegation arguments fare no better, since Congress can give the president large discretion in "matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations," the brief said. Here, the president has his inherent constitutional authority over foreign relations and a broad delegation of power under IEEPA, meaning "his authority is at its maximum," the brief said.