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).
The U.S. opposed the intervention of members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the Supreme Court, arguing that the members don't identify anything "rare, unusual, or extraordinary that would warrant intervention here" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the legality of tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked to intervene in the lead case on the issue a day after the Supreme Court decided to take up the matter. The Blackfeet Nation members said their claims "overlap" with the claims from the existing parties, though their case also raises questions about "fundamental constitutional principles and a unique body of federal Indian law" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
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.
The Supreme Court on Sept. 9 agreed to hear two cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and to do so on an expedited basis. The court set a briefing schedule that would conclude by Oct. 30 and set argument for the first week of November (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to stay two cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The U.S. asked for a stay in both appeals, one brought by the State of California and the other by members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, following the government's request for the Supreme Court to review a separate case on the tariffs.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases, on an expedited basis, concerning the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Briefing will conclude by Oct. 30 and the consolidated cases will be heard the first week of November. The high court decided to consolidate two cases on the issue, one of which was fully before the court on the merits following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling that the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl went beyond the president's authority in IEEPA. The second case, which was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was exclusively on whether IEEPA categorically allows for tariffs.
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stay two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in light of the government's petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court in a separate case on the tariffs. The U.S. said "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," in light of the "rapid schedule" proposed before the high court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent "unanimous ruling on jurisdiction."
Plaintiffs in the primary case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the Supreme Court on Sept. 5 that they consent to the high court's review of the case. Responding to the government's petition for writ of certiorari filed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against many of the tariffs, the plaintiffs, consisting of five importers, said Supreme Court review is "essential," and the court's "final word is needed urgently" in light of the harm wrought by the tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).
The Supreme Court may be willing to adopt certain arguments made by the dissenting judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us. Specifically, certain justices may be willing to adopt Judge Richard Taranto's discussion of the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine, though others were more skeptical about how much tariff authority the court is willing to cede to the president under IEEPA and these two doctrines.