A U.S. judge has dismissed California’s legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s tariffs, but the state is allowed to appeal the decision. The ruling, made by U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Corley in San Francisco, stated that California should have brought its case to a specialized trade court in New York, which handles tariff disputes.
This ruling does not address the actual legality of Trump’s tariffs, which have been a source of ongoing debate. Currently, three different U.S. appeals courts are looking into the legality of the tariffs imposed on various trading partners, as well as separate tariffs aimed at imports from China, Mexico, and Canada.
Since February, Trump has been adjusting tariffs, sometimes pausing or changing rates as part of his efforts to negotiate new trade deals. This back-and-forth has created uncertainty for businesses that rely on international suppliers.
Legal experts believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on the tariffs’ legality. In the meantime, conflicting rulings from different courts could create more confusion. For example, a panel of judges in the U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal judge in Washington, D.C., have already ruled that Trump does not have the authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval. The Trump administration has appealed these decisions.
Judge Corley’s ruling is narrower than those previous decisions and does not tackle the legality of the tariffs. Instead, it focuses on the jurisdiction issue, stating that California should have filed its suit in the Court of International Trade.
California disagreed with this transfer and preferred to have its case dismissed outright. This ruling now allows the state to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., has temporarily paused the trade court’s ruling, allowing the tariffs to stay in place while it considers the matter further.
California argues that any federal court can hear its case because it raises constitutional questions about Trump’s use of tariff powers, which are typically reserved for Congress. The state claims that the law Trump cited to justify the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not actually authorize such tariffs.
California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, “Our argument is straightforward. Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose these destructive tariffs.” The lawsuits challenge both Trump’s general tariffs on imports and the specific tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, which are linked to allegations that these countries facilitate the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.—claims they deny.