On Thursday, the Trump administration requested that the U.S. Supreme Court avoid intervening in a case challenging the president’s authority to impose unilateral global tariffs under a lesser-known emergency power. The administration urged the justices to allow the case to proceed through the lower courts before considering it.

“This specific case does not merit the exceptional step of granting certiorari before judgment at the request of the party that succeeded in the district court,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated in the 14-page brief. “This is particularly true given that the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that the petitioners’ claim clearly lacks validity.”

The case, titled Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, originated from two Illinois family-owned businesses that “develop, market, and sell educational products, educational toys, and pet toys,” suing the government over the global tariff system. The lawsuit contended that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the president “tariff-levying authority at all, much less of the unlimited nature claimed” by Trump in his “remarkable Executive Branch power grab.”

A federal district court judge initially granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in May, but stayed his own injunction for 14 days to give the government time to appeal. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took up the case and promptly halted the lower court’s order, thereby allowing the administration to continue enforcing the tariffs. The panel, which was selected at random, was made up entirely of judges appointed by President Trump during his first term in office.

The administration emphasized that the appellate court had already “expedited its consideration of the appeal” while the full slate of judges on the Federal Circuit are also preparing for an en banc hearing on the matter at the end of the month in a parallel case that has been similarly expedited.

“This Court should not leapfrog those fast-moving proceedings, especially not to grant a petition in a case in which the district court lacked jurisdiction,” the brief states.

The government further argued that this particular case is “not a suitable vehicle” for the high court to address the merits of the case (whether Trump has the authority to issue the tariffs), because the threshold issue on appeal is whether the district court had the authority to issue the initial injunction. Therefore, the administration argues, “this case is unlikely to resolve the ultimate questions about the lawfulness of the tariffs.”

“[T]he district court plainly lacked jurisdiction to rule on these issues at all,” the administration wrote in its appeal to the D.C. Circuit. “The Court of International Trade has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ over ‘any civil action commenced against’ the federal government ‘that arises out of any law of the United States providing for … tariffs’ or for ‘revenue from imports.'”

Working in the administration’s favor, the Court of International Trade in May held that it had “exclusive jurisdiction” to hear such cases because “an action involving a challenge to a presidential action that imposes tariffs, duties, or other import restrictions is one that arises from a ‘law providing for’ those measures.”