US Asks SCOTUS for More Words for Reply Brief in IEEPA Tariff Cases
The U.S. asked the Supreme Court for permission to use an additional 3,000 words in its reply brief in the cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said a total of 9,000 words is needed given that the government will have to address "three separate response briefs, with an additional jurisdictional issue, on a highly expedited schedule" (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.
The motion came in the Supreme Court's consolidated cases on the legality of the IEEPA tariffs. One of the cases was filed by five importers and 12 U.S. states, while the other was filed by two small importers. The high court agreed to hear the cases on an expedited schedule, setting argument for Nov. 5 (see 2509180050).
The U.S. noted that its reply brief, which is due by Oct. 30, will have to respond to arguments from the plaintiffs in both cases. However, the five importers and 12 U.S. states will file their own briefs. The importers are represented by the Liberty Justice Center, and the states are led by the Oregon attorney general.
These three separate briefs in addition to the jurisdictional question raised by one of the cases warrant the extra words, Sauer said. The jurisdictional question concerns whether the two small importers properly filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In its opening brief, the government said the case should have been filed at the Court of International Trade, which has exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising out of U.S. laws that provide for tariffs.
The trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CIT had exclusive jurisdiction, since the issue "arises out of" President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs, and the statute implementing the Harmonized Tariff Schedule says presidential modifications of the HTS are laws of the U.S. The federal D.C. court, meanwhile, said the case arises out of IEEPA, and IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs, giving the district court jurisdiction.