DC IEEPA Plaintiffs Defend Bid to Tie Briefing Schedule to CAFC IEEPA Suit
Plaintiffs in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff suit currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit filed an additional brief in support of their bid to tie the briefing schedule to the briefing schedule of the IEEPA tariff suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
After the government opposed the plaintiffs' proposed schedule, the plaintiffs, importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, stressed that the previously negotiated briefing schedule, which was proposed before the CAFC's stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to enjoin all executive orders implementing the tariffs, "has almost the same filing date for the Government’s opening brief." The originally negotiated schedule would see the government file its brief on July 23, while the new schedule would have the brief due July 8.
In its opposition to the new schedule, the U.S. stressed "resource constraints" that the government's counsel will face the week of July 21. The importers said the new schedule "still affords the Government 10 full days for a reply brief on Friday" ahead of these resource constraints.
"The Government offers no persuasive reason for delaying briefing and argument to inhibit this Court’s resolution of the case in parallel with the Federal Circuit’s," the importers argued.
Although the importers and the U.S. negotiated a briefing schedule that would see briefing wrap up in early August, the importers sought to peg the schedule to the CAFC's schedule after the Federal Circuit stayed CIT's ruling and set oral argument for July 31 (see 2506130029). The importers argued that it's best to harmonize the schedules in the two IEEPA cases to "facilitate timely resolution and potential Supreme Court consideration of both cases together."
The U.S. said that, even assuming Supreme Court review is likely, there's "little basis to believe that the relatively modest differences between the previously agreed-upon briefing schedule here and the schedule adopted by the Federal Circuit will materially alter how quickly each case is resolved."