DC Court Stays IEEPA Tariff Case, Pending DC Circuit Appeal
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 18 stayed two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's consideration of the appeal (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
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.
In the district court case, Judge Rudolph Contreras held that the Court of International Trade doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction in the case, since IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs (see 2505290037). The U.S. moved to transfer the case to CIT on the basis that under Section 1581(i), which says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs, the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matter. Contreras said the case "arises out of" IEEPA, and IEEPA doesn't let the president impose tariffs.
The U.S. immediately appealed the case, and Contreras preemptively stayed his ruling pending appeal (see 2507030052). The judge then asked for a status report to govern further proceedings before the District Court. In the status report, the importers and the U.S. said Contreras should continue to stay his initial ruling pending the current appeal before the D.C. Circuit and any future appeal before the Supreme Court, and the parties asked that the court stay all further proceedings in the case pending appeal.
In a text-only order, Contreras stayed the case until the D.C. Circuit's resolution of the appeal, adding that the parties shall submit a joint status report within two weeks of the circuit court's ruling.