The Court of International Trade on May 23 dismissed Wisconsin man Gary Barnes' case against the ability of the president to impose tariffs. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that Barnes didn't have standing because he failed to claim that any harm he would suffer by tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is "particularized" or "actual or imminent."

The Commerce Department improperly failed to respond to an antidumping duty petitioner's claim that a submission from AD review respondent Assan Aluminyum regarding its duty drawback adjustment didn't rebut, clarify or correct information submitted in the petitioner's rebuttal, the Court of International Trade held on May 21. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce can't pursue the goal of calculating an accurate dumping margin "without regard for procedural constraints."

Importer Detroit Axle on May 21 moved the Court of International Trade for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment against President Donald Trump's elimination of the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods and tariffs on Chinese products. In its motion, the importer argued that it's likely to succeed on the merits of its case, which outlines two bases for finding Trump's actions unlawful: that the president exceeded his statutory authority in ending de minimis for China, and that the agency actions implementing the order are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 20 transferred a case challenging certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge T. Kent Wetherell largely rested his decision on Yoshida International v. U.S. -- the nearly 50-year-old decision sustaining President Richard Nixon's 10% duty surcharge imposed under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor (Emily Ley Paper d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).

The Court of International Trade on May 21 held a second hearing in as many weeks on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The same three judges, Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, pressed both the government and counsel for 12 U.S. states challenging all IEEPA tariff actions on whether the statute allows for tariff action, as well as whether the courts can review if the declared emergencies are "unusual and extraordinary" and the extent to which the case is guided by Yoshida International v. U.S. (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

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.

The Court of International Trade on May 19 granted importer Inspired Ventures' motion to refer its customs suit to court-annexed mediation. Judge Lisa Wang disagreed with the government's reasons for opposing mediation, which included claims that the controversy in the case is "legal in nature" and thus "not amenable to mediation" (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).

Twelve U.S. states challenging all tariff actions taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act traded briefs with the government on the legality of the tariffs ahead of a May 21 hearing on the states' motion for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. The parties sparred on whether the eight states that didn't act as direct importers have standing to challenge the tariffs, whether the IEEPA tariffs have a reasonable connection to the declared threats of trade deficits and the flow of fenantyl, and whether the term "regulate" in the statute confers the power to impose tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

The Court of International Trade on May 19 sent back the Commerce Department's circumvention finding on solar cells from Vietnam just days after sustaining two circumvention findings on solar cells from Thailand and Cambodia. Judge M. Miller Baker said in the Vietnamese circumvention case that Commerce "arbitrarily treated its adverse facts available finding as the administrative equivalent of landing on 'Go to Jail.'"

Gibson Dunn brought a suit to the Court of International Trade on behalf of a small Michigan-based importer, Detroit Axle, to challenge President Donald Trump's revocation of the de minimis threshold for Chinese goods. The complaint, filed on May 16, argues that Trump exceeded his statutory authority in eliminating de minimis for goods from China and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).