President Donald Trump secured a legal win on Monday when a U.S. District Court judge in California dismissed a lawsuit filed by state officials challenging his use of tariffs. The case, brought by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, was centered on Trump’s decision to impose tariffs under emergency powers—a move California argued was unlawful without congressional approval.
The judge, Jacqueline Scott Corley, determined that the issue should not be decided in her court, which is part of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Instead, she agreed with the Trump administration’s position that cases involving trade disputes are typically handled by the U.S. Court of International Trade. Rather than transferring the case, Corley opted to dismiss it outright. This leaves the door open for California officials to appeal the decision to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
While the ruling didn’t evaluate the merits of the lawsuit or the legality of the tariffs themselves, it did mark a procedural victory for the former president, whose team had requested the case be thrown out or moved to the trade court. The judge’s decision was not entirely unexpected. Corley had earlier indicated that she was skeptical about whether her court had the authority to oversee a case dealing with tariffs, which typically falls under the jurisdiction of specialized courts focused on trade matters.
California’s lawsuit, filed in April, was the first of its kind from a state government. It challenges Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs, arguing that the law was not intended to be used as a blanket authority for trade measures. The Trump administration has long maintained that the United States’ ongoing trade deficits constitute a national emergency, thereby allowing the president to act under the IEEPA without needing Congress to approve each move.
🚨 #BREAKING: A federal judge has just DROPPED Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit against President Trump over tariffs
Another W for Trump
Another L for Newscum 😆 pic.twitter.com/vnyqXkTIDj
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 3, 2025
In response to the ruling, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement saying that while the outcome wasn’t what the state had hoped for, the court’s dismissal gives them the opportunity to seek further review. “We strongly believe this case belongs in federal district court,” Bonta said, confirming that California has already filed an appeal.
Governor Newsom’s office echoed that sentiment, noting that the case was dismissed not because of its substance, but because of where it was filed. Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, emphasized that other courts have ruled differently. She pointed specifically to a decision last week from a district court in Washington, D.C., where a judge sided with two toy import companies and invalidated Trump’s tariffs. The U.S. Court of International Trade also recently struck down certain Trump-era tariffs, though many of those import taxes remain in place while the broader legal battles continue.
California’s budgets since Gov. Newsom took office have gone from $208 Billion in 2019 to the $322 Billion he proposed today.
As he blamed President Trump’s tariffs for CA’s money problems, I asked if any of those problems are self-inflicted.
How he responded: pic.twitter.com/weRQL8p1T2
— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) May 15, 2025
Democratic leaders across the country have taken note of these recent decisions. Although this ruling in California was a setback for the state’s legal challenge, the broader picture shows that federal courts are currently divided on how to interpret the president’s use of emergency powers to regulate trade.
For now, Trump’s tariffs remain a topic of legal and political debate. As appeals move forward, more rulings from higher courts are expected to shape the future of executive authority in trade matters.
