The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 27 in the appeal on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the district court got the jurisdiction and merits questions wrong. The government said the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia took a "nonsensical" view of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction and that, contrary to the court's ruling, IEEPA does confer tariff-setting authority (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 24 in its appeal of the Court of International Trade ruling vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that CIT got it wrong "at every turn." The government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the trade court "properly did not question whether IEEPA authorizes as a general matter," though the court improperly suggested that "giving effect to IEEPA’s text would create constitutional concerns, invoking the nondelegation doctrine" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mulls the government's emergency stay motion against a Court of International Trade decision permanently enjoining tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, five different groups of amici filed briefs at the appellate court either attacking or defending the trade court's ruling.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 20 transferred a case challenging certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge T. Kent Wetherell largely rested his decision on Yoshida International v. U.S. -- the nearly 50-year-old decision sustaining President Richard Nixon's 10% duty surcharge imposed under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor (Emily Ley Paper d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
The Court of International Trade on May 21 held a second hearing in as many weeks on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The same three judges, Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, pressed both the government and counsel for 12 U.S. states challenging all IEEPA tariff actions on whether the statute allows for tariff action, as well as whether the courts can review if the declared emergencies are "unusual and extraordinary" and the extent to which the case is guided by Yoshida International v. U.S. (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
One hundred forty-eight members of the House of Representatives filed an amicus curiae brief May 16 saying the International Emergency Economic Powers Act wasn't intended to grant the president the power to levy tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
California became the next International Emergency Economic Powers Act plaintiff to prepare to move for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. It said May 13 it is providing notice it will be filing for an injunction on June 26 (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
The Court of International Trade on May 13 heard arguments in the lead case on the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif pressed counsel for the plaintiffs, the Liberty Justice Center's Jeffrey Schwab, and DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the court can review whether a declared emergency is "unusual and extraordinary," as well as the applicability of Yoshida International v. U.S., a key precedential decision on the issue, and whether the major questions doctrine applies and controls the case (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
The Institute for Policy Integrity, an economic law think tank housed at the NYU School of Law, filed an amicus brief in the lead case at the Court of International Trade on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to discuss the "major questions" doctrine. The institute said the plaintiffs filing the case, represented by conservative legal advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, "do not fully state the doctrine or properly explain why it is triggered here" (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).