Following decisions from the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidating tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, questions remain about which court has the right view on whether the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases on IEEPA tariffs. Relatedly, the issue affects where importers may file suit to contest the imposition of IEEPA tariffs or seek refunds of duties paid under tariff action found to be unlawful.
Chapter1, a small Nevada-based importer represented by boutique litigation firm Gerstein Harrow, filed a case at the Court of International Trade on May 29 seeking class certification for all importers that have paid tariffs recently invalidated by the trade court. The suit, if successful in challenging the tariffs and establishing class certification, would provide refunds for all companies that have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).
No lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
The end of reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed over fentanyl smuggling from China, Canada and Mexico is on hold until an appellate court decides if the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was illegal for those purposes.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't allow the president to impose tariffs, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on May 29. A day after the Court of International Trade vacated and permanently enjoined all the tariff executive orders issued under IEEPA by President Donald Trump, the D.C. court went a step further and categorically ruled that IEEPA doesn't include the power to impose tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-1248).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 issued an administrative stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency motion to stay the CIT decision (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on May 23 denied the government's motion to dismiss four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's appeal of a Montana court's decision to transfer a case challenging various tariff actions to the Court of International Trade. The appellate court also stayed proceedings until the Montana court rules on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the transfer order (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The Court of International Trade on May 28 vacated and permanently enjoined all tariffs so far issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that the reciprocal tariffs and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, which were imposed to address the flow of fentanyl, fall outside the authority IEEPA grants to the president.
The District Court for the District of Columbia struck down all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act a day after the Court of International Trade did the same. However, Judge Rudolph Contreras went farther than the trade court, holding on May 29 that IEEPA categorically doesn't include the power to impose tariffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 stayed the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all trade action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency and Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency stay motion of the trade court's ruling. Yesterday, the trade court vacated all of Trump's executive orders imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. The U.S. immediately filled for a stay of the decision at CIT and the Federal Circuit, arguing that such a ruling would "hamstring" U.S. foreign policy.