PALM BEACH, FLORIDA - MARCH 4: Republican presidential candidate, former President Donald Trump speaks in the library at Mar-a-Lago on March 4, 2024 in Palm Beach, Florida. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Trump can appear on this year's presidential ballot in all states. The Court reversed a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that had disqualified him from appearing on that state's ballot for engaging in insurrection. (Photo by Alon Skuy/Getty Images)
Sacramento, California – A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed California’s lawsuit challenging former President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs, ruling that the case falls outside the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California and belongs instead in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York. The decision, issued Monday by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, represents a procedural setback for Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta but leaves the door open for an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit, filed in April, marked California as the first state to formally oppose Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. The tariffs, imposed during Trump’s second term without congressional approval, were justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump claimed the country faced a national emergency due to trade deficits with foreign nations, a rationale California argued overstepped presidential authority and violated the constitutional separation of powers.
Rather than transfer the case directly to the trade court as requested by Trump administration attorneys, Judge Corley opted to dismiss it outright—an action that allows California to challenge the ruling in the Ninth Circuit. While the decision does not address the merits of California’s claims, it effectively pauses the state’s legal challenge unless or until a higher court reinstates the case.
The ruling arrives amid a flurry of legal activity surrounding Trump’s tariff regime. Last week, two separate courts—the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.—found Trump’s tariffs exceeded the authority granted under IEEPA. In one case, a federal judge sided with toy importers who argued that the levies were unconstitutional; in the other, a three-judge trade court panel issued a similar rebuke. Despite those decisions, many of Trump’s tariffs remain in place while federal litigation continues.
In San Francisco, Judge Corley, a Biden appointee, signaled during earlier hearings that she believed jurisdiction likely rested with the trade court. Her final ruling aligned with that view. The U.S. government designed this arm of the judicial branch to centralize litigation involving import taxes, reducing the potential for a patchwork of conflicting rulings from district courts across the country.
California officials contend that Trump’s invocation of emergency powers to impose economic penalties—particularly tariffs targeting countries like China and Mexico, and even indirectly impacting states like California—sets a dangerous precedent. Their lawsuit sought to assert the limits of executive authority, particularly when unilateral decisions have a broad impact on state economies.
While the ruling temporarily halts that effort, California has already moved to appeal. State officials emphasized that the dismissal was procedural rather than substantive. They pointed to the contrasting federal decisions last week as signs that Trump’s tariff policy remains under serious judicial scrutiny.
