Update: Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in D.C. Circuit Tariff Appeal

Case will proceed to D.C. Circuit Court in regular order; meanwhile, appeal from trade court to Federal Circuit still set for July 31 argument.

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to expedite its consideration of an appeal from the D.C. District Court as requested by the plaintiffs (two small businesses, makers of educational toys) in their case against the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — the so-called “reciprocal” and fentanyl tariffs. The District Court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ position but stayed its injunction pending the government’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) — thus, in the interim, leaving the tariffs in effect. As noted in our latest alert (https://phillipslytle.com/reciprocal-tariffs-extended-pending-appeals/), the plaintiffs, pleading ongoing irreparable economic harm, moved to potentially bypass the D.C. Circuit, seeking an expedited grant of certiorari and early hearing before the Supreme Court. The case now appears on track to be considered on schedule by the D.C. Circuit.

In a parallel case of larger scope (rulings in the D.C. Circuit case are applicable only to the two specific plaintiffs), a coalition of states and private plaintiffs are contesting the government’s appeal (as well as a similar stay) from a U.S. Court of International Trade decision in their favor, here on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). The Federal Circuit has set oral argument on that appeal for July 31, 2025, indicating that a decision is likely by early August 2025 at the soonest.

The Supreme Court’s denial of the petition does not mean that it may not grant certiorari at some later date; most observers assume that, in fact, the two cases likely will be consolidated by the Court for consideration of the common Constitutional and statutory issues. What it does mean is that, pending the appeals and absent further extension by the administration (always a possibility), the tariffs — due to snap back into effect as of July 9, 2025 — are in effect and must be paid by importers.

Two points to keep in mind:

1. These cases (or their outcomes) do not, in any way, pertain to the Section 232 National Security tariffs currently imposed on steel and aluminum derivatives and on autos and automotive products, which have a different statutory basis and implementation procedure.
2. Should the Supreme Court eventually strike down the IEEPA tariffs in these cases, substantial refunds may be available. Importers should keep careful and complete records of all payments made to document requests for recovery of the funds.

The Phillips Lytle International Business Team will carefully monitor the ongoing developments and court cases that affect the administration’s tariff policy and import regulations.