Two toy manufacturers asked the court to greatly expedite their case, in an unusual request.
Two toy manufacturers challenging a major piece of President Trump’s tariffs program asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to expedite their case and rule that Congress had not authorized the levies.
The request was unusual for several reasons. Petitions seeking review ordinarily come from the losing side, but the companies had won in front of a district court judge. They then sought to leapfrog the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which would ordinarily rule before the justices considered whether to grant review. And they asked the justices to move very quickly, asking that they schedule arguments in September or October.
All of this suggests that the court is unlikely to agree to hear the case at this stage.
The manufacturers — Learning Resources and hand2mind — argued that the law Mr. Trump relied on, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not authorize tariffs. Until Mr. Trump acted, their companies’ brief said, “no president had ever invoked I.E.E.P.A. to impose a single tariff or duty on goods in the statute’s nearly 50-year history.”
In a separate and broader challenge, the Court of International Trade also ruled against the administration’s tariffs program. A different appeals court, the Federal Circuit, is set to hear arguments in that case next month. Both lower court rulings have been paused, allowing Mr. Trump to press forward with his tariffs.
Once the appeals courts have ruled, appeals to the Supreme Court are all but certain, and the justices are quite likely to take up one or both of them.
The toy companies seek to use an unusual procedure to bypass the D.C. Circuit, “certiorari before judgment.” The procedure used to be rare, mostly reserved for national crises like President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor or President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry.
Before 2019, the court had not used it for 15 years, according to statistics compiled by Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University. Since then, he found, the court has used it at least 19 times.