Various Amici Defend, Contest US Stay Motion in IEEPA Tariff Appeal at CAFC
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mulls the government's emergency stay motion against a Court of International Trade decision permanently enjoining tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, five different groups of amici filed briefs at the appellate court either attacking or defending the trade court's ruling.
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 lone amicus brief supporting the stay motion came from the President Donald Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation and Coalition for a Prosperous America. The advocacy groups laid out a host of legal arguments as to why the trade court got it wrong in finding Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA in implementing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs meant to combat the flow of fentanyl.
In addition, the America First Legal Foundation and Coalition for a Prosperous America argued that any relief granted by the trade court should be limited to the plaintiffs -- 12 U.S. states and a group of five importers. The amicus brief argued that Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs aren't subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act, as found by CIT and claimed by the plaintiffs, meaning the "APA’s presumptive universal vacatur rule cannot apply here," the brief said.
The advocacy groups said that this outcome can't be thwarted by arguing that the lawsuit is actually challenging various agencies' implementation of the EOs either, since the president, and not the agencies, "takes the final action that affects" the states and importers.
The brief also said the 12 states can't get relief that extends to importers within their borders "under a thinly veiled parens patriae theory," which says states are the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves. The groups cited Supreme Court precedent finding that states don't have "standing as parens patriae to bring an action against the Federal Government.”
On the legal front, the Trump-aligned groups argued that precedent dictates that IEEPA authorizes tariffs and that the use of IEEPA for tariffs doesn't violate the major questions doctrine, and also that IEEPA itself doesn't violate the non-delegation doctrine. Invoking trade-specific Supreme Court case law, the groups repeatedly cited Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin, which permitted tariffs imposed under Section 232 -- a statute that lets the president "adjust" imports. The challenged language in IEEPA lets the president "regulate" imports.
The advocacy groups argued that Algonquin, when paired with the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act finding that "to regulate" means to "adjust by rule or method," permits the contested tariff action. The brief said "the Supreme Court has held that 'adjusting imports' allows for charges like tariffs and that 'adjusting' means the same as 'regulating,' and IEEPA authorizes “regulating imports.”
Four groups of amici stood on the other side of the issue, claiming that the Federal Circuit shouldn't stay the CIT's decision, since it's legally correct. The amici are a group of 33 Democratic senators, NYU's Institute for Policy Integrity, the Crutchfield Corporation and a group of former government officials and legal scholars.
The 33 senators argued that the administration's claimed injury is "avoidable," while a stay would irreparably harm the senators' constituents who are "similarly situated" to the plaintiffs. They also said the public interest strongly weighs in favor of a stay. Regarding the administration's claimed injury, the brief said the government's alleged harm, which involves the claim that the ruling would kneecap U.S. foreign policy efforts and ongoing trade talks (see 2506050058), can be "avoided if the Administration simply follows the procedures and laws Congress enacted to grant the President power to impose tariffs, rather than abusing IEEPA."
Like the plaintiffs themselves, the Senators cited statements from administration officials themselves saying they can turn to other trade tools should the trade court's ruling stand. The brief was led by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen,D-N.H., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Chuck Schumer D-N.Y., according to a release from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
NYU's Institute for Policy Integrity centered its argument around the major questions doctrine, arguing that the Supreme Court's two decisions on the doctrine lay out its criteria and that those criteria are met here. Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs is "unheralded, transformative, and economically and politically significant," the brief said. The action is "unheralded," since no president has ever used the law to impose tariffs. It's "transformative," since it "takes a statute meant to apply sanctions, asset freezes, and similar targeted measures to address acute emergencies and transforms it into a blank check to the President to rewrite congressional trade policy," and it's plainly "economically and politically significant," the brief said.