President Donald Trump is calling to transfer legal cases filed against his tariffs to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), a strategy that eventually worked out for him during his first administration.
The CIT, whose judges handle technical disputes against tariffs, ruled against Trump in lawsuits against his steel tariffs in 2018, but then he was able to appeal the case and win, reports Bloomberg News on Wednesday.
Cases have been filed in California, Montana, and Florida against the president's current tariffs.
Legal experts say that steering the lawsuits through the CIT could also work out for Trump, because even if the trade court rules against him, the appeals case would go through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has in the past deferred to presidents' authority on levying tariffs.
Last week, Department of Justice attorneys argued to move the case in California, filed in a San Francisco federal court and brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom, to the CIT, located in New York.
The move followed other requests by the government to transfer cases brought by the Blackfeet Nation in Montana and by a stationery business in Florida.
Another case, a request by five small businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, has already been filed directly in the trade court.
Tuesday, a three-judge CIT panel refused in that case to immediately halt the tariffs on the grounds that the companies did not show proof the tariffs would cause "immediate and irreparable harm" to their businesses.
Another hearing is set for May 13 to consider a request for a preliminary injunction in the case.
All of the lawsuits filed challenge Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose worldwide tariffs.
In arguments to move the other cases, the DOJ warned that if cases go through district courts, there is a risk of "inconsistent results and different tariffs imposed in different regions of the country, in direct conflict with Congress's statutory design."
The IEEPA gives the president broad authority for certain financial transactions while declaring a national emergency based on an "unusual and extraordinary threat."
Trump in February, while announcing tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, said undocumented immigrants and drug trafficking posed an "extraordinary threat" to the country.
The administration argues that the law authorizes Trump to enact tariffs and that the CIT has "exclusive jurisdiction" to hear any challenges against it.
Challengers, however, argue that the IEEPA does not relate to tariffs, so the CIT should not be handling lawsuits in the matter.
Andy Morris, a senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative legal group representing the Florida stationery company, said the dispute means the judge presiding over that case will need to address the core issue behind the lawsuit.
"The premise of our entire case is that this emergency statute that Trump invoked is not a law that provides for tariffs," said Morris.
But even if the cases aren't transferred and the courts rule against the administration, the standoff could wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court's 6-3 conservative majority is expected to give Trump a win, but the justices have also said they are willing to curb federal power used for significant policy changes.
Sandy Fitzgerald ✉
Sandy Fitzgerald has more than three decades in journalism and serves as a general assignment writer for Newsmax covering news, media, and politics.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.