A federal judge rejected an emergency lawsuit this week aimed at preventing President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs from taking effect, referring the case to the United States Court of International Trade for further review.
U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II denied a Florida-based stationary company’s emergency motion to stay their challenge to Trump’s tariffs, agreeing that the case should be heard by the United States Court of International Trade, noting that it “makes no sense for this case to remain in this court because the CIT is already considering multiple nearly identical suits.”
He also appeared to argue that Trump has the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to unilaterally impose the sweeping tariffs for reasons other than revenue generation.
This is the first time a federal judge has sided with Trump’s argument that the 1970s-era law allows him to unilaterally impose tariffs for reasons other than revenue. It also represents a short-term victory for the Trump administration, which has sought to transfer its cases to the New York-based court.
It comes as plaintiffs claim in a series of lawsuits filed across the country that Trump improperly used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement the sweeping new import fees.
But Wetherell appeared to feel differently. He said Trump had the authority to impose the tariffs, a question he said “was effectively answered 50 years ago” by the precedent set in United States v. Yoshida International Inc., a case brought by a Japanese zipper company during the Nixon administration.
Judge Wetherell determined that Trump’s rationale for the tariffs, which includes stemming the flow of drugs into the United States and resolving a so-called “trade deficit” with China, is sufficient to meet the terms of invoking IEEPA.
“Likewise, the stated purpose of the tariffs at issue in this case is to help stem the flow of illicit drugs into the United States and to remedy an ongoing trade imbalance, not to raise revenue,” a judge said.
However, the victory may not last long.
It’s unclear whether Trump will have an advantage in that Court of International Trade, which has previously been more favorable to the administration.
A group of small businesses filed a request to halt Trump’s tariffs earlier this year. However, the three-judge panel denied the request, citing a lack of evidence that they would suffer “immediate and irreparable harm” due to the economic penalties.
However, it has been 50 years since CIT, then known as the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, determined whether a president had the authority to impose tariffs.
There’s also a “difference between what was taking place in the early 1970s, and the disgruntlement of one small Japanese zipper company, and an administration that wants to use these standards that Congress set somewhat vaguely eons ago” of what constitutes a national emergency, according to David H. Feldman, an economist and professor at William & Mary.
“If the courts eventually punt and say these statutes mean whatever the president thinks they mean, then we have descended into a world” where the commander-in-chief can make these determinations on a whim or as he sees fit for individual companies, Feldman said. This means that there would be “no check on the presidential power to manipulate markets,” he explained.
Wetherell seemed to think so, though.
“The reasoning in Yoshida is persuasive, and the Court sees no reason why it would not apply to IEEPA because the operative language of IEEPA is identical to the operative language in TWEA,” according to him.
The decision comes amid a flurry of lawsuits attempting to block or pause Trump’s near-term actions, including lawsuits aimed at limiting DOGE, or the Elon Musk-led government “efficiency” agency, preventing Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship, and challenging tariffs, among other things.
