On May 29, a day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ("CIT") issued summary judgment in V.O.S. v. Trump blocking the IEEPA tariffs, the District Court for the District of Columbia ("DDC") exercised jurisdiction in Learning Resources, Inc., et. al., v. Donald J. Trump, et. al. (25-cv-1248), denying the government's motion to transfer the case to the CIT and granting a preliminary injunction to enjoin the government from enforcing the IEEPA tariffs against the Learning Resources plaintiffs.
As with V.O.S., Learning Resources was filed following President Trump's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") which imposed tariffs on a slew of countries. Plaintiffs Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind, Inc. contended that:
- IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,
- If IEEPA does authorize the President to impose tariffs, the challenged tariffs are not legal, and
- if IEEPA were interpreted to allow for the President to impose the challenged tariffs, the statute itself would be unconstitutional on grounds it violates the nondelegation doctrine.
Defendants Donald J. Trump and multiple government agencies and officials moved to transfer the case to the CIT, arguing that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(i) and 1337(c). Meanwhile, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. After hearing argument this past Tuesday, May 27, the Court ruled for Plaintiffs on both motions, denying the government's motion to transfer and granting Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
The DDC's exercise of jurisdiction is a departure from several other district courts that granted the government's motion to transfer substantively identical cases to the CIT on the basis that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over actions arising from statutes that provide for the imposition of tariffs. See Simplified v. Trump et al. Case No. 3:25-cv-00464 (N.D.Fla.); Webber et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security et al.; and Case No. 4:25-cv-00026 (D. Mont.). A motion to transfer remains pending in California v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-03372 (N.D. Cal.). Unlike those other courts, and unlike the CIT itself in V.O.S., the DDC determined that IEEPA is not properly construed as providing for the imposition of tariffs.
The DDC stayed its order for 14 days to give the government an opportunity to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and the government did so the same day. Meanwhile, in V.O.S. case, which the government also immediately appealed to the Federal Circuit, the Federal Circuit entered an administrative stay pending further action on the government's motion for an emergency stay pending appeal. The DDC decision assures that in addition to the merits question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs, the appellate courts (possibly including the Supreme Court) will also have to contend with the jurisdictional question.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
