A judge appointed by former President Joe Biden dismissed California's lawsuit over President Trump's tariffs due to jurisdiction issues, which, on the surface, seems like good news.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley – a nominee of former President Joe Biden – issued a partial setback to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who sued Trump and several federal agencies in April.
The Trump administration had asked the judge to transfer the case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. Court of International Trade, based in New York. She instead threw out Newsom and Bonta’s case altogether, opening a path for the two Democrats to appeal the ruling to the famously liberal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The California Democrats argued Trump’s tariffs issued under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act violate the separation of powers doctrine because they were not approved by Congress, but the Trump administration says the levies address a national emergency due to the trade deficit with other countries.
"The Government moves to transfer this case to the CIT [U.S. Court of International Trade] on the ground the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over California’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)," the judge wrote."
Scott Corley refused to rule on the issue of tariffs itself:
It would be inconsistent with Congressional intent for this Court to nevertheless exercise its jurisdiction, as California urges, to decide whether the tariffs are lawful. That inconsistency becomes apparent when considering a hypothetical scenario in which this Court exercises jurisdiction over California’s lawsuit and reaches a different result than the CIT as to whether to enjoin the tariffs.
Noting that the action is "within the CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction" and that "California opposes transfer and instead requests dismissal," Scott Corely dismissed the case without prejudice.
So far, so good, right?
Maybe not.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the news in a press release:
Today, our lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s disastrous and illegal tariffs was allowed to remain in California pending our incoming appeal. We strongly believe this case belongs in federal district court and are pleased the court considered our wishes in dismissing this case so we have the opportunity to seek review. Our argument is straightforward: Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose these destructive tariffs — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act simply does not authorize tariffs. [Emphasis added]
He seems to be saying that the judge did exactly what they were hoping for. Almost makes it seem as if they collaborated on the decision...
According to my esteemed RedState colleague Susie Moore, "The state has already filed its Notice of Appeal in the matter, so this likely isn't the end of the road for this particular litigation."
Now, California can take its case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (or, as Rush Limbaugh used to call it, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals), the notoriously liberal bench. That said, Trump's appointments have shaken up the Court. As Cal Matters wrote earlier this year:
For decades the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been a reliable stronghold for liberal ideals, but that changed during President Donald Trump’s first term thanks to the 10 appointments he made.
The court’s balance sits at 16-13 as he returns to office, and the margin between judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans hasn’t been this narrow for nearly three decades.
Who knows, maybe they'll surprise us and rule the right way on this important case.