US Asks 9th Circuit to Stay IEEPA Tariffs Suits in Light of SCOTUS Cert Petition
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stay two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in light of the government's petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court in a separate case on the tariffs. The U.S. said "it would be a waste of judicial resources for this Court to hear and decide this case before the Supreme Court has resolved the proceedings before it," in light of the "rapid schedule" proposed before the high court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent "unanimous ruling on jurisdiction."
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.
The Federal Circuit had held the week prior that President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to combat the flow of fentanyl violated the president's authority under IEEPA (see 2508290073). The Trump administration quickly took the case to the Supreme Court, filing a cert petition on Sept. 3 (see 2509040017).
Meanwhile, two cases, one brought by the State of California and another brought by members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, on the legality of the IEEPA tariffs are set for a Sept. 17 hearing before the 9th Circuit (see 2507090022). However, both of the appeals concern whether the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case, since the lower courts in both cases said the matters belong at the trade court.
Moving for a stay in light of the cert petition, the U.S. stressed the expedited schedule requested by the government and accepted by the plaintiffs. Under that schedule, the petition would be considered by Sept. 10, briefing would conclude by the end of October and the Supreme Court would hold oral argument the first week of November.
The U.S. said the merits of the appeals "overlap entirely with those before the Supreme Court," though it acknowledged that the implication of the plaintiffs' arguments at the 9th Circuit "would be that the CIT (and the Federal Circuit) lacked jurisdiction in that case." In response, the government emphasized that the CAFC unanimously said the trade court has "exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to tariffs imposed under IEEPA."
The brief said this is "relevant both because it makes clear there is no serious doubt about the Supreme Court’s ability to reach the merits" in the case on appeal from the Federal Circuit "and because, as our brief explains, this Court’s precedent calls for deference to the CIT’s determination of its exclusive jurisdiction."
The government said it would be "inefficient" to hold hearings in the appeals "where (1) determining that this Court has jurisdiction would require it to split with the Federal Circuit, in the face of precedent calling for deference, and (2) even if this Court believed it had jurisdiction, it would be addressing a merits issue already before the Supreme Court."
California said it opposes the stay request for now, though it's "open to revisiting the request" if the Supreme Court grants the cert petition. The government's motion doesn't say whether the Blackfeet Nation members responded to the government's stay request.