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, among other things, a permanent injunction preventing the defendants (including DHS and CBP) from implementing or enforcing these specific China tariffs. This market asks whether this specific District Court will grant such injunctive relief (either preliminary or permanent) that effectively stops the nationwide enforcement of these specific tariffs before the end of 2025.

Resolution Criteria:

This market will resolve to "Yes" if:

1. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issues an order in Case 3:25-cv-00464-TKW-ZCB.

2. This order grants either a preliminary or a permanent injunction.

3. This injunction explicitly prohibits the named defendants (or the relevant government agencies, e.g., DHS, CBP) from implementing, enforcing, or collecting the tariffs imposed on goods from China under Executive Orders 14195 and 14228.

4. The injunction's effect, as ordered by the District Court, is nationwide (halting the general application of these specific tariffs).

5. This court order is issued on or before 11:59 PM ET on December 31, 2025.

This market will resolve to "No" if:

1. December 31, 2025, passes without an injunction meeting the "Yes" criteria having been issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

2. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida explicitly denies the plaintiff's request for both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief regarding these specific China tariffs before the resolution date.

3. The case (in the District Court) is dismissed with prejudice, withdrawn by the plaintiff, or settled without an injunction meeting the "Yes" criteria being issued by the District Court before the resolution date.

4. The challenged Executive Orders (14195 and 14228) are fully rescinded by subsequent executive action or nullified by legislation before an injunction meeting the "Yes" criteria is issued by the District Court, thereby rendering the request for injunction moot at the District Court level.

Clarification:

An injunction limited solely to the plaintiff (e.g., ordering CBP not to collect tariffs only from Emily Ley Paper Inc.) without halting the general nationwide enforcement of the tariffs against other importers would not be sufficient to resolve this market to "Yes". The focus is on whether the District Court stops the general enforcement of these specific tariffs nationwide. Subsequent actions by appellate courts do not affect the resolution of this market, which is based solely on the District Court's actions by the deadline.