The 12 U.S. states challenging President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20, arguing that the text of IEEPA doesn't allow for any tariffs to be imposed and that Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs to combat the flow of fentanyl don't meet the statute's other requirements (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The private parties challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply briefs at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20. The briefs centered their arguments on the text of IEEPA itself, arguing that the law, which only lets the president "regulate ... importation," categorically doesn't confer tariff power to the president. The companies also argued that the major questions and non-delegation doctrines compel the high court to strip President Donald Trump of the unfettered tariff power he claims under the statute (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Crutchfield, a consumer electronics seller, filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 17 challenging the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In the brief, the company highlighted the harms imposed on "American retailers" by the tariffs and argued that the "plain language" of IEEPA and the Constitution don't grant the president "unprecedented, unilateral, and unreviewable" tariff authority (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
President Donald Trump told reporters on Oct. 15 that he would like to attend the Nov. 5 oral argument at the Supreme Court regarding whether he can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. After declaring that the tariffs he has imposed are essential for economic and national security matters, Trump said: "I'm going to go to the Supreme Court to watch it. I've not done that, and I've had some pretty big cases."
The Supreme Court on Oct. 14 denied four members of the Blackfeet Nation's attempt to intervene in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Civil litigation attorney Corey Biazzo filed the second amicus brief against the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, on Oct. 8, arguing that IEEPA categorically doesn't allow for tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
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).
Importer Detroit Axle opposed the government's motions for an extension of time to respond to the company's motions for leave to amend its complaint and for partial summary judgment in its case against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis threshold for goods from China. Detroit Axle said the U.S. "has failed to establish 'good cause'" for being given another 35 days to respond to the motions to amend and for partial summary judgment if the Court of International Trade dissolves the stay of the case (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).
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).
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.