Filed Date: July 21, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the tariffs put in place by President Trump and the resulting modifications made by various agencies to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). After being re-elected for his second term, President Trump issued multiple Executive Orders placing tariffs up to 145% on various countries. President Trump claimed authority to issue these orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
On July 21, 2025, the plaintiffs, including two corporations and one nonprofit trade organization that rely on purchases from countries targeted by President Trump's tariffs, sued President Trump, the Executive Office of the President, the United States, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Western District of Texas. Represented by counsel from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the plaintiffs alleged that the tariffs were ultra vires because IEEPA does not authorize presidents to impose tariffs unilaterally and because the Executive Orders failed to meet IEEPA's requirement that the tariffs be necessary to address the emergencies (illegal opioids and trade deficits) that President Trump claimed led to the need for the tariffs. The plaintiffs also claimed that, if IEEPA does actually allow presidents to impose tariffs, then IEEPA violated the nondelegation doctrine "because it lacks an intelligible principle that constrains a president's authority." Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that the changes made to the HTSUS to implement the tariffs violated the APA, as they were contrary to law.
The plaintiffs requested that the court declare the tariffs and the resulting HTSUS modifications unlawful, vacate the executive orders, and enjoin the defendant agencies from implementing the tariffs or the HTSUS modifications.
The case was assigned to District Judge David A. Ezra. On July 28, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (CIT), arguing that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over cases challenging tariffs. The same day, the defendants also filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on their motion to transfer.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jeremiah Price (7/23/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70867938/parties/firedisc-inc-v-trump/
Morris, Andrew J. (Texas)
Vecchione, John J. (Texas)
Mathers, Luke (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70867938/firedisc-inc-v-trump/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, noon
State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Tariffs)
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 21, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two corporations and one nonprofit trade organization that depend on purchases from countries targeted by President Trump's tariffs.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public (for-profit) corporation
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States (- United States (national) -), Federal
Executive Office of the President (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
Customs and Border Protection (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: