Four amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court on Sept. 23 in defense of President Donald Trump's ability to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The briefs focused on various elements of the case, though they all argued that the nondelegation doctrine shouldn't be used to strip the president of his tariff authority here, since the court has long upheld broad delegations of authority to the president in the realms of foreign affairs and national defense (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. asked the Supreme Court for permission to use an additional 3,000 words in its reply brief in the cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said a total of 9,000 words is needed given that the government will have to address "three separate response briefs, with an additional jurisdictional issue, on a highly expedited schedule" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Corey Biazzo, a Charlotte-based civil litigation attorney, filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court on Sept. 21 in opposition to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Biazzo's submission is the first amicus brief filed in the case on the merits and argues that President Donald Trump's claimed tariff authority violates separation of powers principles (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).
The standing up by DOJ of the Trade Fraud Task Force indicates the Trump administration is pouring significantly more resources and attention into prosecuting tariff evasion and customs fraud, and will use the various criminal and civil enforcement tools at their disposal, various attorneys said.
The Supreme Court will consider various Blackfeet Nation members' motion to intervene in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act at its Oct. 10 conference (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Supreme Court said that any motions relating to the oral argument in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act shall be filed on or before Oct. 3. The high court previously granted an expedited briefing schedule in the case, declaring that argument will be heard the first week of November (see 2509090058). Thus far, only one motion related to the argument has been filed, and it came from litigants in a separate case on IEEPA tariffs currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, seeking to intervene in the Supreme Court cases (see 2509100058) (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).