The plaintiffs, the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom, brought this action against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The lawsuit challenged a series of executive orders imposing broad tariffs on imported goods, including increased tariffs targeting specific countries such as China, Canada, and Mexico. The plaintiffs contended that these executive actions exceeded the authority granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and violated the Constitution’s separation of powers by effectively allowing the President to impose tariffs without explicit congressional authorization. They sought a declaration that the orders were unlawful, an injunction preventing their enforcement, and recovery of court costs.
The defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), asserting that court has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff-related matters. The plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction, citing potential irreparable harm from the tariffs. While the motions were pending, other related cases challenged the same tariffs in different courts, with mixed rulings, including preliminary injunctions and determinations of unlawfulness that were stayed pending appeal. The district court ultimately found the court lacked jurisdiction, but denied the defendants’ motion to transfer and dismissed the case at the plaintiffs’ request to facilitate an immediate appeal on the jurisdictional question. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit and requested expedited review. The Ninth Circuit is holding the proceedings in abeyance until the Supreme Court issues a decision in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. No. 25-250 and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287.
