SCOTUS Denies Importers' Bid to Expedite Consideration of Cert Petition in IEEPA Suit
The Supreme Court on June 20 denied a motion from importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind to expedite consideration of their petition to have the high court take up their lawsuit against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
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 government now has a full 30 days to respond to the full certiorari petition.
The two importers filed for Supreme Court review of their case on June 17, urging the high court to consider the matter of whether IEEPA provides for tariffs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has even had a chance to hear the case (see 2506160019). Learning Resources and Hand2Mind asked the high court to review their cert petition on an expedited basis in light of the high cost of the tariffs.
The U.S. Solicitor General opposed the importers' request, arguing that the companies haven't justified such a "stark departure from established practice" (see 2506180079).
In response, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind continued to stress the exacting toll of the IEEPA tariffs, arguing that the high court has granted certiorari before judgment nearly 20 times since 2019, including in cases of "similarly 'staggering' legal, economic, and political significance." The consequences of this suit are "too great to justify the government's unwarranted plea for delay," the brief said.
The importers said it's hard to "imagine a case more likely destined for this court's docket," in light of the IEEPA tariffs' "unprecedented nature and monumental impact." And while the government hinted "(in passing) that certiorari before judgment is inappropriate because" the importers prevailed below, the injunctions granted at the trial court level have all been stayed and the Supreme Court has previously agreed to hear cases before judgment where the petitioner prevailed below, the brief said.
Learning Resources and Hand2Mind dubbed the government's response to the "escalating harms" faced by the tariffs to be a "feeble one," in that the U.S. suggested companies affected by the tariffs could get refunds if the tariffs are found to be unlawful. "But that misses a critical point: businesses cannot receive refunds for all the goods they are unable to import in the first place due to prohibitively high tariff rates," nor can they recover lost sales, business opportunities, market share or customer goodwill, the brief said.
"And, of course, refunds do little good to a bankrupt business."
The importers then noted the D.C. Circuit's recent decision declining to align their briefing schedule with the schedule set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a similar case against the IEEPA tariffs. Under the current timeline, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind said their case wouldn't be heard for months.
The importers said if the high court wants to hear their case "in tandem" with the Federal Circuit appeal, there's "every reason to think the" CAFC plaintiffs "will immediately seek certiorari before judgment if this Court grants here -- or this Court can adjust the schedule should the Federal Circuit issue a decision in early August (before D.C. Circuit briefing is even complete)."
The government's push for the full 30 days to respond to the cert petition is "hard to take seriously," the importers added. The companies said the government can clearly respond quickly, noting the fact that the Solicitor General filed a response to the motion to expedite consideration of the cert petition within 24 hours and the government's "emergency application after emergency application in both this court and others," including the tariff cases when they lost in the Court of International Trade and D.C. federal district court.
And while the U.S. said the motion to expedite should be denied, since jurisdiction in the importers' suit is improper, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind argued that the merits of the case is inexorably linked with the jurisdictional question in the case. The government said the case belongs at CIT, since Section 1581(i) lets CIT exclusively hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. And, here, the case arises not out of IEEPA but the executive orders implementing the tariffs, since the tariffs modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and a U.S. statute says any presidential HTS modifications are laws of the U.S.
In response, the importers said not even the trade court adopted this view of its own jurisdiction and that, in any case, this theory is "wrong." The "substantive law" that gives rise to the importers' claims is IEEPA, making this a case that arises out of IEEPA, not the EOs, the brief said.