State attorneys general may take the lead on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement in light of the Donald Trump administration's pause on enforcing the act, attorneys at Crowell & Moring said in an April 14 alert. There's good reason to believe states will follow California's lead in announcing that it will enforce anti-foreign bribery efforts, the firm said.
The Court of International Trade on April 16 held that it doesn't have jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) to hear claims from a group of importers that the Commerce Department failed to find a changed circumstance or open new shipper reviews in an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes covering entries during 1995-96. Sustaining the agency's investigation results on remand, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also held that the intervenors don't have standing to sue, since their claims aren't related to those of the other parties with standing.
The U.S. defended its bid to transfer a case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 232 to the Court of International Trade, arguing that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs' convenience in keeping the suit in Montana is "irrelevant" to CIT's jurisdiction. Filing a reply brief on April 16, the government said the plaintiffs, four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe, "ignore or misunderstand" CIT's "specialized nature and the fact that that court may also review the implementation of executive orders in cases within its jurisdiction" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
CBP improperly classified importer AB Specialty Silicones' specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds, AB argued in an April 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00067).
The Court of International Trade dismissed exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s challenge to CBP's issuance of a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon or its subsidiaries. However, in a confidential decision issued on April 16, Judge Claire Kelly denied the government's motion to dismiss Hoshine's second claim, which contested CBP's refusal to modify the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).
The lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs has been assigned to a three-judge panel. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani will hear the case, according to an order from CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
The Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in importer Simplified's lawsuit against the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China to support the government's motion to transfer the matter, currently before a Florida federal district court, to the Court of International Trade. The brief said the trade court's work is "important" but "hardly well known," making it unsurprising that some parties in IEEPA cases "have either not recognized how § 1581(i) applies to IEEPA, or have chosen not to press the matter" (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
The state of California opened a lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of California on April 16 against President Donald Trump's ability to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. The two-count complaint claims that Trump acted beyond his statutory authority granted by IEEPA to impose the "reciprocal" tariffs and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, and that Trump's tariff actions usurp legislative authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 14 denied court-appointed amicus Andrew Dhuey access to confidential filings in an appeal on the International Trade Commission's treatment of business proprietary information. Judge Evan Wallach said Dhuey "has not shown" that access to this information is "necessary for him to file his proposed amicus brief." The judge said the motion is "denied without prejudice to Mr. Dhuey raising arguments" on "why access to particular confidential information cited in the United States’ brief is needed to assist the court" (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).