Background:
On April 3, 2025, Emily Ley Paper Inc. (represented by NCLA) sued the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Case 3:25-cv-00464). The lawsuit challenges the legality of tariffs imposed on all imports from China via Executive Orders 14195 (Feb 1, 2025) and 14228 (Mar 3, 2025). The plaintiff argues President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), claiming IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs, and that the action violates the Constitution's separation of powers (nondelegation doctrine). The plaintiff seeks to have these specific tariffs declared unlawful and their enforcement halted nationwide via an injunction or vacatur. Following proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the case may be appealed to the relevant U.S. Court of Appeals. This market asks whether the plaintiff will succeed at the Court of Appeals level in a way that stops these specific tariffs from being enforced nationwide by the end of 2026.
Resolution Criteria:
This market will resolve to "Yes" if before December 31, 2026:
The relevant U.S. Court of Appeals (e.g., 11th Circuit) takes definitive action (e.g., issues a merits decision, denies rehearing thereby finalizing a favorable panel ruling) in the Emily Ley Paper Inc. v. Trump case appeal.
This Appeals Court action represents a legal victory for the plaintiff (Emily Ley Paper Inc.) on the merits of its challenge to the legality or constitutionality of the China IEEPA tariffs (EOs 14195 & 14228).
As a direct result of this plaintiff victory decided or affirmed by the Appeals Court, the nationwide enforcement of these specific China tariffs is halted (e.g., via a nationwide injunction being ordered, affirmed, or reinstated by the Appeals Court).
This market will resolve to "No" if before December 31, 2026:
The plaintiff (Emily Ley Paper Inc.) has not achieved a legal victory decided or affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals that results in the nationwide halting of the specified China tariffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals rules against the plaintiff on the merits of the tariff challenge, or affirms a lower court ruling against the plaintiff.
The specified China tariffs remain in effect nationwide, irrespective of any Appeals Court action or inaction in this case by the deadline.
The appeal becomes moot, is settled, withdrawn, or is otherwise resolved without the plaintiff achieving the specific outcome defined in the "Yes" criteria via Appeals Court action by the deadline.
The U.S. Court of Appeals has not taken the definitive action required to meet the "Yes" criteria by the deadline.
Clarification:
This market requires both a substantive win for the plaintiff regarding the tariffs' illegality, decided or affirmed at the U.S. Court of Appeals level, AND the practical outcome of the tariffs being stopped nationwide as a result of that win. A procedural victory or relief limited only to the plaintiff is insufficient for a "Yes" resolution. Subsequent actions by the Supreme Court do not affect the resolution of this market, which is based solely on the Appeals Court's actions by the deadline.