9th Circuit Stays California's IEEPA Tariff Suit, Keeps Indigenous Litigants' Suit Alive
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided Sept. 12 to stay proceedings in California's case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it denied the government's stay request in a similar case brought by members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe. Oral argument in the tribal members' lawsuit remains scheduled for Sept. 17 before Judges William Fletcher, Ronald Gould and Ana de Alba (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
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.
The same three judges stayed consideration of California's case pending the Supreme Court's resolution of two cases on the issue, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump. While California told the U.S. that it opposed the stay motion, it didn't file a formal opposition before the appellate court, unlike the Blackfeet Nation members (see 2509110028).
California's case was filed to challenge the president's ability to issue tariffs under IEEPA at all and argued that the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to curb the flow of fentanyl violate IEEPA. Meanwhile, the Blackfeet Nation members' suit contests the reciprocal tariffs and certain Section 232 tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed. The tribal members also allege that the tariffs violate the Indian Commerce Clause and the Jay Treaty.
In challenging a stay of their case, the Blackfeet Nation members emphasized those additional claims made under the Indian Commerce Clause and the Jay Treaty, arguing that a stay would effectively put the case "out of court." The members said arguments set for Sept. 17 "will allow this Circuit to address and adjudicate tribal sovereignty and treaty rights, which are not identical to those of the other litigants in the Supreme Court case."