US Renews Stay Motions in 9th Circuit IEEPA Tariff Appeals
The U.S. renewed its motions to pause proceedings in two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit following the Supreme Court's decision to hear a pair of cases on the same issue. Plaintiffs in both appeals, the State of California and members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, opposed the renewed motions (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 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.
Both appeals are set to be heard by the 9th Circuit on Sept. 17 (see 2507090022).
On Sept. 9, the high court agreed to hear two cases on the legality of tariffs issued under IEEPA, consolidating the actions, and electing to decide the issues on an expedited basis (see 2509090058). The cases were initially brought by various importers and U.S. states and concern whether IEEPA allows for tariffs and whether President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to combat the flow of fentanyl go beyond the president's authority found in IEEPA.
The appeals from California and the Blackfeet Nation members make similar, if not identical, claims, though their appeals are on the jurisdictional question of whether the cases should be heard before the Court of International Trade. In both appeals, the district courts either dismissed or transferred their cases after finding that CIT had exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings.
The U.S. initially asked the 9th Circuit to hold the appeals in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's consideration of its petition for writ of certiorari in the now-lead case on the issue, though the appellate court denied those initial motions. The government renewed the motions after the high court granted certiorari, arguing that 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."
The merits of the claims from California and the Blackfeet Nation members "overlap entirely with those before the Supreme Court," the brief said. The U.S. added that while the implication of the plaintiffs' claims would be that CIT lacked jurisdiction in the lead case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently "unanimously" held that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to IEEPA tariffs. The government noted that the Supreme Court decided to also take up a case from a district court as part of its decision to consider the question of IEEPA tariffs, meaning there's "no doubt that the Supreme Court will be able to reach and resolve the merits."
The Blackfeet Nation members already filed their opposition to the government's motion, concurrently filing a motion to intervene at the Supreme Court (see 2509100058). The members said the "government has not shown that the circumstances justify a stay," adding that allowing the stay would effectively put the case "out of court." The members emphasized their claims, which include claims under the Indian Commerce Clause and the Jay Treaty, are distinct from those of the other plaintiffs before the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court.
The members said argument set for Sept. 17 "will allow this Circuit to address and adjudicate tribal sovereignty and treaty rights, which are not identical to those of the other litigants in the Supreme Court case."