Wednesday evening, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. As Joe Cunningham reported:

The court found that the administration’s actions exceeded the statutory limits of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and, in doing so, violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.

READ MORE: Federal Trade Court Strikes Down Trump’s 'Liberation Day' Tariffs, Citing Overreach

Hot on the heels of that ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a decision Thursday morning that echoed it, in addition to determining he had jurisdiction in the case (rather than being obligated to transfer it to the Court of International Trade (CIT) as the administration had requested). 

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., sided with a Chicago-area toy company on Thursday, blocking five executive orders signed by President Donald Trump that imposed tariffs on Chinese imports.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras determined the International Economic Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize Trump to impose the tariffs in his executive orders.

Contreras granted a motion for a preliminary injunction, filed by the toy company, Learning Resources, Inc., which will be stayed for 14 days in case the administration decides to appeal the decision.

Contreras began his opinion by framing it thusly:

This case is not about tariffs qua tariffs. It is about whether IEEPA enables the President to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy. 

He then engaged in a lengthy analysis on the jurisdictional issue, ultimately concluding that the district court had jurisdiction because the "IEEPA is not a 'law. . . providing for tariffs,'" further explaining: 

The statutory phrase “regulate . . . importation,” as used in IEEPA, does not encompass the power to tariff. The plain meaning of “regulate” is not “to tax.” And historical practice, as well as Congress’s actions in response to the “Nixon shock” tariffs, confirm that the statute is not so capacious. Second, because IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, the tariffs that derive from the Challenged Orders are ultra vires.

Contreras thus denied the administration's motion to transfer the case to the (CIT). 

He then determined that the plaintiffs met the requirements to warrant a preliminary injunction, i.e., that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they will sustain irreparable harm if the tariffs remain in place, and the balance of the equities and the public interest favor an injunction.

He did set an injunction bond in the case...of $100.

The administration has already appealed the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. RedState will, of course, continue to follow the case and provide updates as warranted. 

Editor's Note: Partisan federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people

Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.