IEEPA Tariff Challengers Ask for 3-Way Split of Argument Time, 45 Minutes Per Side
The parties challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked the Supreme Court to grant divided argument among the three groups of plaintiffs challenging the tariffs and to allow for 45 minutes of argument for each side. The three groups are five importers that filed suit at the Court of International Trade, 12 U.S. states that filed suit at CIT, and two importers that filed their case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (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 government said it didn't oppose an "enlargement of argument time to 45 minutes per side." Argument is set for Nov. 5 (see 2509180050)
The brief said the three groups of plaintiffs each advance unique interests, warranting a division of time for each group. The importers who filed suit at CIT in the V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump case are only challenging the reciprocal tariffs in addition to their claim that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs. Meanwhile, the U.S. states are challenging the reciprocal tariffs and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to curb fentanyl trafficking.
In addition, the U.S. states haven't raised a "separate non-delegation challenge at any stage in the proceedings," whereas the V.O.S. importers did, arguing that if an unfettered tariff power is found to exist in IEEPA, it violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles. The states also are the only group arguing that the trafficking tariffs violate IEEPA's requirement that the action taken "deal with" the threat identified by the president.
The brief added that the two importers that filed suit in D.C. have their own interests, since "the parties are adverse with respect to the threshold jurisdictional question." The U.S. argued that the case from the two importers, led by Learning Resources, belongs exclusively at CIT, since the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases that arise out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. The government claimed that the case "arises out of" the executive orders implementing the tariffs, adding that the executive orders are "laws of the United States," since the statute implementing the Harmonized Tariff Schedule says presidential modifications to the HTS are laws of the U.S.
Meanwhile, Learning Resources is arguing that the case "arises out of" IEEPA, and since IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs, the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter.
The plaintiffs' brief argued that this jurisdictional posture meant that Learning Resources couldn't advance its arguments that if IEEPA did provide for tariffs, the tariffs challenged by Learning Resources, which are the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China to combat fentanyl trafficking, exceed the president's power found in the statute.
The plaintiffs told the high court that extending the time for argument to 45 minutes per side and giving each of the three groups of challengers time to argue "will ensure that the various interests are adequately represented before the Court" and that the "statutory and constitutional arguments in this case are fully explored, and that the jurisdictional dispute is properly ventilated."