US Files Reply Brief in Pair of IEEPA Tariff Appeals at 9th Circuit
The U.S. filed its reply briefs in a pair of appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on whether challenges to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act belong in the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from the State of California and various members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, the government said the case "arises out of" President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, giving CIT exclusive jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) (State of California v. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
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.
Section 1581(i) says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. California argued that its challenge to the tariffs "arises out of" IEEPA and that IEEPA doesn't provide tariffs, stripping the trade court of exclusive jurisdiction (see 2507010048).
In response, the U.S. laid out its claim for why the cases arise out of the EOs and the HTS instead -- a defense of the trade court's jurisdiction that has evolved over the course of the IEEPA tariff litigation across various courts. The government said the case arises out of the president's modifications to the HTS, adding that the HTS is the "substantive law that prescribes tariffs" and that modifications of it are "considered to be statutory provisions of law for all purposes" under the statute implementing the HTS.
While California argued that its claims exclusively arise out of IEEPA, the government said that claim "relies on an atextual narrowing of the jurisdictional statute and lacks support in precedent." Section 1581(i) "looks to the laws from which the lawsuit arises, not just the law on which the executive action was premised," the brief said. Even if the cases arise out of IEEPA, "they also arise out of the law that directly injures plaintiffs: the HTSUS and modifications," the government argued.
If California had its way, the trade court's jurisdiction would "rise and fall with the merits of" the state's claim that IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs, "undermining Congress's deliberate routing of such matters to a single forum and ignoring the principle that jurisdictional statutes typically do not 'make a court's jurisdiction ... dependent upon the merits of the claim,'" the brief said.
California's interpretation also would "ignore this Court's repeated cautions that district courts should allow the CIT to determine its own jurisdiction," the U.S. said. The brief added that if the appellate court finds that jurisdiction rises and falls with whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs, the case should be remanded to the California district court to answer that question in the first instance or affirm the dismissal of the state's case.
The government then sought to defend the notion that IEEPA plainly provides for tariffs, arguing that the statute's grant of authority to let the president "regulate ... importation" includes the power to impose tariffs. The U.S. relied on a key decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's predecessor court, which let President Richard Nixon impose a 10% duty surcharge under this exact same language.
Oral argument in both appeals is set for Sept. 17 (see 2507090022).