Offering its thoughts as an amicus curiae to the Supreme Court’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs case, the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog said that if IEEPA does grant the executive the powers President Donald Trump claims, the law itself is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
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).
The likelihood of the Supreme Court striking down President Donald Trump's tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is a "coin flip," various attorneys said during a Sept. 30 webinar hosted by The Budget Lab, a policy research center at Yale University. Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, an amicus in the IEEPA tariffs cases, noted a "very clear split" among trade lawyers and constitutional lawyers as to where the Supreme Court will come out on this issue.
Counsel for the Blackfeet Nation members challenging the imposition of tariffs on Native Americans asked the Supreme Court for leave to participate in the Nov. 5 oral argument session on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The members' attorney, Monica Tranel, asked for 15 minutes to argue her case during the hearing, saying her claim that the president can't impose tariffs on Native Americans isn't "addressed by the other parties" (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. on Sept. 24 opposed a company’s motion to resume its case challenging the end of de minimis, arguing that the case still raises the same legal questions as V.O.S. Selections vs. U.S. despite a new executive order officially rescinding de minimis globally (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).
A total of seven amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court in defense of President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One of the briefs, filed by the America First Policy Institute, urged the Supreme Court to sustain Trump's IEEPA tariff action under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, while another, penned by University of Virginia law professor Aditya Bamzai, detailed how wartime powers have historically included the power to tax and argued that IEEPA should be read to include these powers (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. filed its opening brief at the Supreme Court on Sept. 19 in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to stop the flow of fentanyl are a valid exercise of IEEPA, adding that the tariffs are a proper expression of presidential policymaking in emergency situations.
The Supreme Court set oral argument for the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for Nov. 5, part of an attempt to hear the cases on an expedited basis (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Importers who have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should look to affirmatively safeguard their right to receive refunds should the Supreme Court vacate in some form President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the statute, various law firms said. The attorneys issued the alerts in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to hear two cases on the legality of IEEPA tariffs on an expedited basis (see 2509090058).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided Sept. 12 to stay proceedings in California's case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it denied the government's stay request in a similar case brought by members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe. Oral argument in the tribal members' lawsuit remains scheduled for Sept. 17 before Judges William Fletcher, Ronald Gould and Ana de Alba (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).