SCOTUS Gives Challengers in Tariff Cases 40 Minutes for Argument
The Supreme Court on Oct. 23 expanded the time for oral argument in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, giving each side 40 minutes to make their cases. However, the court said the parties challenging the tariffs, which are two groups of importers and one group of 12 U.S. states, shall split their time evenly between the private parties and the U.S. states (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 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 parties challenging the tariffs had asked the high court for a total of 45 minutes to argue the case and for this time to be equally divided among the three different groups (see 2510010051). Specifically, the parties are as follows: two importers led by Learning Resources that filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, five importers led by V.O.S. Selections that filed suit at the Court of International Trade, and 12 U.S. states led by Oregon that also filed suit at CIT.
The three groups said they each should get even time due to the different positions they are arguing for before the high court.
Between the private parties, Learning Resources is arguing that the text of IEEPA itself, which lets the president "regulate ... importation," doesn't confer tariff authority (see 2510200050). The importer is also claiming that the trade court doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction in the dispute, since CIT only has such jurisdiction in cases arising out of laws that provide for tariffs, and the case "arises out of" IEEPA, which doesn't provide for tariffs.
V.O.S. Selections is making similar textual arguments, as well as constitutional ones, against the interpretation of IEEPA to allow for tariffs, though it's not making any similar jurisdiction arguments.
Counsel for both groups of importers didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on how the private parties' time would be used.
The Supreme Court also denied a bid to join the oral argument as an amicus from four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe. The tribal members are arguing that the president can't impose tariffs on Native Americans due to the Constitution's Indian Commerce Clause and the Jay Treaty.