Trump-Backed Legal Group Defends US Bid to Transfer Fla. IEEPA Suit to Trade Court
The Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in importer Simplified's lawsuit against the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China to support the government's motion to transfer the matter, currently before a Florida federal district court, to the Court of International Trade. The brief said the trade court's work is "important" but "hardly well known," making it unsurprising that some parties in IEEPA cases "have either not recognized how § 1581(i) applies to IEEPA, or have chosen not to press the matter" (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The amicus brief, filed with consent of the parties, came in Simplified's suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the IEEPA duties imposed on China. The U.S. filed a motion this week to send the case to CIT on the basis that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) to hear the case (see 2504150022).
Section 1581(i) says the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action against the U.S. where the claim "arises out of any law of the United States providing for" tariffs, duties or embargoes "for reasons other than the protection of the public health or safety." Counsel for Simplified has indicated that he intends to oppose this motion on the grounds that IEEPA isn't a law that allows the government to impose tariffs (see 2504080072).
Looking to defend the government's motion to transfer, the America First Legal Foundation said all the elements of Section 1581(i) are met, making CIT the proper home for the suit. The foundation first said the case "arises out of" IEEPA. Section 1581(i) doesn't say the civil action "must be provided for or authorized by the relevant law." Instead, Congress used the broader term "arising out of" to "indicate a looser causal connection," the brief said.
The foundation added that it "makes no difference that Plaintiff’s claims are framed as violations of the Administrative Procedure Act or an ultra vires equitable claim." A plaintiff's selection of a certain cause of action can't let it "escape the broad language in § 1581(i)(1), or else the Court of International Trade’s exclusive jurisdiction could be easily skirted," the brief said.
The brief added that while Simplified may claim that prior civil suits arising out of IEEPA weren't brought exclusively to CIT, "it appears none of those cases addressed how § 1581(i)(1) applies to IEEPA," meaning there's not even a "drive-by jurisdictional ruling" on the matter. Bringing all IEEPA suits to the trade court "makes perfect sense: it ensures a single trial-level court hears challenges to civil suits arising out of statutes related to certain trade actions that are national -- really, international -- in effect," the brief said.
Instead of a "multitude of challenges brought in different district courts whenever the President invokes such a law, with each court potentially reaching contradictory determinations, there will instead be a single court reaching a single determination," the foundation argued. This concern isn't "hypothetical," since there are already cases brought in Montana and California challenging the tariffs and "more will likely come," the brief said.
The amicus brief was prepared by Trent McCotter, partner at Boyden Gray, and Daniel Epstein, an attorney at the foundation.