US Tells SCOTUS No Need to Consider Cert Petition on Expedited Basis
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to reject two importers' bid to have the high court hear their case on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides for tariffs on an expedited basis. Sauer said the importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, haven't justified "such a stark departure from established practice," which would see the Supreme Court take up the case prior to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit weighing in (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
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.
Learning Resources and Hand2Mind sought Supreme Court review of their case on June 17, arguing that there's no reason to wait, since the question of whether IEEPA provides for tariffs will be before the high court anyway (see 2506160019). The importers asked the Supreme Court to order the U.S. to file its response to the writ of certiorari petition by June 23 and to consider the petition before the court's summer recess.
In response, Sauer said this "proposed course makes little sense."
The solicitor general said granting certiorari before judgment on an expedited basis is an "exceptional procedure" that is unnecessary here in light of the expedited schedules in the appeals of the IEEPA tariff cases currently before the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Such a drastic departure from standard practice isn't justified, particularly in light of the importers' ability to get refunds for any tariffs paid and the fact that the importers' case only involves an injunction limited to the two companies "rather than universal relief," Sauer said.
The government's response added that considering "certiorari before judgment on a highly expedited timeframe would be all the more unwarranted here because the main issue in this case," unlike the CAFC case, is whether the D.C. court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this suit at all.
Sauer said the importers' case will likely will be dismissed or transferred for lack of jurisdiction, since the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. Here, the executive orders imposing the tariffs are such laws, particularly since they modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and Congress said any HTS modification made by the president "shall be considered to be statutory provisions of law for all purposes."
The U.S. added that considering certiorari before judgment on an expedited basis also is "unwarranted" given the concurrent suit proceeding before the Federal Circuit. Once the CAFC issues its decision, the Supreme Court will then have a chance to determine whether to hear the issue and do so during its October 2025 term. The CAFC case is a better one to decide this issue, since it originates at CIT and "this Court would have the benefit of a court of appeals’ decision," Sauer said.