Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden resigned from the court on July 4 and was sworn in as deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture on July 7. Vaden was confirmed by the U.S. Senate last month to serve in the number two role at USDA (see 2506120064).

Five different groups of amici on July 8 filed briefs in the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. All five briefs argued against the tariffs, though they differed in their specific approach or legal arguments (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

Five importers challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the government's defense of the tariffs' legality falls short. The importers, represented by the conservative advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, argued that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs, IEEPA is precluded from being used to address trade deficits due to the existence of Section 122, and the Court of International Trade was right to issue an injunction against the tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general in the Barack Obama administration, will argue against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31. The Liberty Justice Center, the conservative advocacy group that initially brought the case on behalf of various importers, tapped Katyal to argue the case at the Federal Circuit (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The Court of International Trade on July 3 sustained CBP's finding that importers Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on glycine from China via Indonesia-based exporter PT Newtrend Nutrition Ingredient. Judge Stephen Vaden said CBP adequately supported its finding that PT Newtrend's Indonesian factory couldn't produce all the glycine it shipped to the U.S. and that at least some of the exported glycine was sourced in China.

The Court of International Trade on July 3 denied the International Trade Commission's request to redact five pieces of information from the court's public version of its decision remanding the commission's affirmative injury determination on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco and Russia. Concurrently, Judge Stephen Vaden released the public decision, which said the record "raises serious questions about whether domestic producers were able and willing to supply consumers during the period of review."

The Court of International Trade on July 3 let importer Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations add three documents to the record in a case on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann said the documents are needed to review whether Commerce improperly declined to add the documents to the record in the AD investigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's recent ruling in a trade-related False Claims Act case likely will create more customs fraud enforcement led by private parties and should lead importers to be extra wary that they are complying with U.S. trade laws, various laws firms said. The case is Island Industries v. Sigma Corp. (9th Cir. # 22-55063).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 1 scheduled oral argument for the lawsuit challenging the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for Sept. 30, nearly two months after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in a parallel IEEPA tariff suit. The court said the composition of the panel hearing the argument is usually revealed 30 days before the oral argument date (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).