US Moves to Transfer California's IEEPA Tariffs Case to Trade Court
The U.S. moved to transfer the State of California's lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's authority to issue tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. With the April 17 motion, the government has now moved to transfer all three cases filed in federal district courts to the trade court (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
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.
As in its other two motions to transfer filed in district courts in Montana and Florida (see 2504150022), the U.S. said the trade court has "exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction" over the complaint.
The statute at issue, Section 1581(i), grants CIT exclusive jurisdiction to hear any civil cases against the U.S. that "arises out of any law of the United States providing for ... tariffs, duties, fees or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue" or under any law providing for "revenue from imports." The statute also says CIT has exclusive jurisdiction to hear all civil cases arising out of any law that provides for the "administration and enforcement with respect to the matters referred to in" Section 1581(i).
The government noted that in a separate statute, Congress said the "district courts shall not have jurisdiction under this section of any matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade."
In all three motions to transfer, the U.S. said the "Supreme Court has confirmed that these statutes mean exactly what they say." Citing K-Mart Corp. v. Cartier, the government argued that when one of the grants of exclusive jurisdiction to CIT applies, all other courts are "divested of jurisdiction" over the case. The government said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which sets law for the Northern District of California, agrees that Section 1581(i) strips cases from the "general federal-question jurisdiction" of district courts.
The U.S. also said in all three motions to transfer that CIT's exclusive jurisdiction "serves an important function: it consolidates this area of law 'in one place ... with an already developed expertise in international trade and tariff matters,' thus ensuring a 'degree of uniformity and consistency.'" The brief added that CIT's "exclusive jurisdiction is broad, encompassing constitutional challenges to tariffs, duties, exactions, and embargoes."
The California lawsuit challenges the president's authority to issue tariffs under IEEPA (see 2504160042). "This question, including all threshold questions, falls squarely within the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade because they arise out of laws providing for tariffs or the administration or enforcement of those laws," the U.S. said.