Donate
Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

FIREDISC, Inc.; The Game Manufacturers Association; and Ryan Wholesale, Inc. v. President Donald J. Trump, et al.

CASE SUMMARY

Representing FIREDISC, the nonprofit Game Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and Ryan Wholesale, NCLA challenges President Trump’s unlawful attempt to impose widespread tariffs based on alleged “emergency” authority. He has cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but that statute authorizes emergency actions like economic sanctions and asset freezes to protect the United States from foreign threats.

Article I, § 8 of the Constitution grants Congress sole authority to control tariffs, which legislators have done by passing detailed tariff statutes. The President cannot bypass those statutes by invoking “emergency” authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs. His attempt to use the IEEPA this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of “vast economic and political significance” in a law without explicit congressional authorization. If the IEEPA were held to permit this executive order, then the statute would run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine because it lacks an “intelligible principle” to limit or guide the president’s discretion in imposing tariffs.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has stayed this case until the Supreme Court decides two cases that it has accepted for review: VOS Selections v. Trump and Learning Resources v. Trump. NCLA disagrees with the District Court’s decision to stay the case, in particular given the Trump Administration’s emphasis on allowing legal issues to “percolate” in multiple district courts.

The Supreme Court has set an accelerated timeline for VOS Selections and Learning Resources, scheduling briefing for October and oral argument for the first week in November. NCLA will be active in supporting the parties challenging the tariffs in the U.S. Supreme Court.

OUR TEAM

John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Andrew Morris
Senior Litigation Counsel
Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Plaintiffs' Response and Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer

August 11, 2025 | Read More

Plaintiffs' Response and Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Disposition of Defendants' Motion to Transfer

August 4, 2025 | Read More

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

August 4, 2025 | Read More

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

July 21, 2025 | Read More

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

July 21, 2025 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Launches Second Lawsuit Against Trump Administration’s Unlawful Emergency Tariff Orders

July 21, 2025 | Read More

RELATED CASES
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • Aposhian v. Garland

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Guidance Abuse

    Agency guidance is easier to promulgate than formal rules and regulations, so agencies prefer to issue it. Such “guidance” supplies relatively informal indications of how an agency interprets rules and statutes. Although guidance is not permitted to bind Americans (unlike laws made by elected legislators), agencies treat guidance as binding and courts often fail to stop them.

    Case Active - January 7, 2019

    Agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

    View Case
  • Howard and Karen Baldwin v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed - February 24, 2020

    Agencies: Internal Revenue Service

    View Case
  • Marcus Broadway v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: U.S. Sentencing Commission

    View Case
  • Thomas H. Buffington v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Department of Veterans Affairs

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

[social_warfare buttons='facebook,twitter,linkedin,youtube' button_sha]

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.