Judge Delivers Blockbuster Ruling On Gavin Newsom’s Lawsuit Against Trump

Subscribe for free to eliminate ads

Disclaimer: The article may include the author's opinions.

Advertisement

A federal judge in San Francisco has dismissed the State of California’s case against President Donald Trump’s tariff policy, marking a legal setback for Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta. The ruling was issued by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, a Biden appointee, who determined that procedural issues limited California’s authority to proceed with the lawsuit.

The complaint had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in April against Trump and a number of federal agencies. Nevertheless, in spite of attempts to contest the tariffs on the grounds of the separation of powers, the judge dismissed the case completely rather than transferring it to the U.S. Court of International Trade as requested, creating a path for appeal to the Ninth Circuit, a court renowned for its liberal views.

California officials had tried to claim that Trump’s tariffs, which were imposed without congressional approval under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were unconstitutional. Trump’s administration, on the other hand, insisted that the tariffs were necessary to solve a national economic emergency linked to the trade deficit.

The challenge followed earlier rulings from a trade court in New York and a D.C. district court that questioned the legality of Trump’s imposition of a 10% tariff, dubbed the “Liberation Day” tax, on imports from China, Mexico, and even California. These opinions, issued by Democrat-appointed judges, alleged the tariffs exceeded the scope of authority granted by the IEEPA.

Despite the setback, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement framing the dismissal as a procedural step allowing California to proceed with an appeal in a more favorable venue. The decision, he noted, keeps the matter in California jurisdiction and sets the stage for a legal challenge before the Ninth Circuit.

In a prepared statement, Bonta reiterated claims that Trump lacked the authority to implement the tariffs, while expressing confidence in California’s position. Governor Newsom’s office echoed this stance, stating via X that the ruling was procedural and an appeal had already been initiated.

Meanwhile, in Washington, a federal appeals court granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause a lower court’s ruling that had blocked the tariffs, thereby allowing them to remain in effect during the appeal process. The administration had argued that an immediate reversal would present serious risks to foreign policy and national security.

The three-judge panel in New York had previously declared the global tariffs “contrary to law,” a judgment that prompted President Trump to respond sharply on social media, raising concerns over judicial activism and apparent bias.

Officials from the Department of Justice later filed a request to stay the ruling, citing the urgent need to protect U.S. interests on the global stage. According to the filing, implementation of the lower court’s order would result in “immediate irreparable harm” to national security and foreign relations.

As legal proceedings continue, the broader debate over presidential authority in trade matters and national emergency declarations remains far from resolved, though Trump’s team has signaled a strong commitment to defending the constitutional grounds for the tariffs.

Share the article to spread the truth

Subscribe for free to eliminate ads