12 Groups File Amicus Briefs in IEEPA Tariff Suit at DC Circuit

11 of the briefs support the importers' arguments against the tariffs and were filed by the Brennan Center for Justice; a group of former government officials, constitutional scholars and legal historians; Consumer Watchdog; the Protect Democracy Project; the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law; advocacy groups led by Advancing American Freedom; the State of California; four small importers; the Cato Institute; the Washington Legal Foundation; and a legal scholar and former member of Congress. Only one of the amicus briefs, filed by the President Donald Trump-aligned group the America First Legal Foundation, supported the tariffs.

The briefs arose in importers Learning Resources' and Hand2Mind's suit against the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA (see 2507240043). In the case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the statute categorically doesn't allow for tariffs. The appeal is largely centered on that question and whether the case should have been transferred to the Court of International Trade under Section 1581(i), which says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. Oral argument is set for Sept. 30.

In its amicus brief, the Brennan Center argued that Congress passed IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act to "circumscribe presidential use of emergency powers." The center added that to construe IEEPA to authorize tariffs would "contravene Congress's intent" to circumscribe those powers, arguing that clear authorization should be required for actions taken under statutes such as IEEPA.

The group of former government officials, legal scholars and historians argued that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide tariff authority. The brief centered on the fact that IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs, Congress "deliberately rejected tariff authority in IEEPA," emergencies don't change the analysis and that President Donald Trump's tariffs are "permanent policy rather than emergency measures."

Consumer Watchdog argued that if IEEPA lets the president impose tariffs, it would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The Protect Democracy Project echoed this argument, adding that emergency powers "pose a unique threat to democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law."

The Institute for Policy Integrity centered its brief on the major questions doctrine, which says the executive can only regulate issues of major political or economic significance upon explicit delegation from Congress. The brief took a deep dive into the history of the doctrine and claimed that it unequivocally applies to Trump's actions under IEEPA and requires a finding that should IEEPA confer tariff-setting authority, it would be too great a delegation.

Advancing American Freedom rooted its claim in the Constitution, arguing that the taxing power is a "core legislative power reserved to Congress in the Constitution" that can't be delegated via IEEPA. The legal scholar, Vikram Amar, and former member of Congress, Mickey Edwards, made similar non-delegation arguments. Amar and Edwards added that "courts should consider constitutional retrieval concerns when construing statutes that purportedly confer broad powers to the President" to "minimize the costs of error."

In its brief, the Cato Institute emphasized that historical practice confirms that tariff setting is a "nondelegable legislative power," adding that IEEPA doesn't let the president modify tariff rates.

Lastly, the State of California, the four small importers and the Washingtom Legal Foundation also made claims against the power to impose tariffs under IEEPA. Both California and the importers, led by Simplified, have filed their own lawsuits against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs.