A U.S. judge has dismissed California’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, allowing the state to pursue an appeal over the court’s ruling that the dispute should have been filed in a specialized U.S. trade court in New York.
The ruling, issued late on Monday by U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Corley in San Francisco, did not address the merits of California’s lawsuit. Now, three separate U.S. appeals courts may concurrently assess the legality of Trump’s broad tariffs on U.S. trading partners and a distinct set of tariffs targeting imports from China, Mexico, and Canada.
Driving the news: President Trump has been implementing and adjusting tariffs since February in an effort to negotiate new trade agreements with other nations. These fluctuating tariffs have caused uncertainty for businesses dealing with international suppliers.
- Although legal experts anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the tariffs’ legality, decisions from various intermediate courts could contribute to further confusion in the meantime.
- Previous rulings from the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal judge in Washington D.C. have indicated that Trump lacked the unilateral authority to impose tariffs without Congressional input. The Trump administration has challenged these decisions in cases brought by 12 U.S. states and multiple small businesses.
The big picture: Corley’s ruling, in comparison, is more focused and does not delve into the legality of Trump’s tariffs. Instead, Corley determined that California’s lawsuit should have been filed in the Court of International Trade, which holds exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes in the U.S.
- California, which opposed the transfer, sought for the case to be dismissed rather than transferred, which permits it to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. has temporarily suspended the trade court’s ruling, allowing the tariffs to remain in place for now while considering whether to extend the stay while the appeal proceeds.
- California argues that any federal court can hear the case since it raises a constitutional objection to Trump’s use of tariff powers reserved for Congress unless delegated to the president.
What they’re saying: California Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized, “Our argument is straightforward. Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose these destructive tariffs.”
- White House spokesman Kush Desai reiterated that U.S. district courts lack jurisdiction over the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff disputes.
