The State of California and its governor, Gavin Newsom, filed an amici curiae brief on May 15 in a lawsuit brought by 12 U.S. states against all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In it, the state made a bevy of statutory arguments against the government's interpretation of IEEPA, all of which are included in the state's own lawsuit against the IEEPA tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

The Commerce Department properly found that exporters Canadian Solar and Trina Solar circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells by sending their products through Thailand, the Court of International Trade held on May 16. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained Commerce's decision to put special emphasis on the amount of research and development investment into the companies' Thai facilities to show that the companies' processes in the country were "minor or insignificant."

One hundred forty-eight members of the House of Representatives filed an amicus curiae brief May 16 saying the International Emergency Economic Powers Act wasn't intended to grant the president the power to levy tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

The U.S. opened a civil suit against importers Aspects Furniture Manufacturing and Aspects Furniture International seeking nearly $7.7 million in unpaid antidumping duties on 99 entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China. The complaint also named Hospitality Engineering Services and the chief executive of all three companies, Amy Sivixay, as defendants, claiming that Hospitality and Sivixay are liable for the unpaid duties, since they controlled the actions of the two importers (United States v. Aspects Furniture Manufacturing, CIT # 25-00089).

California became the next International Emergency Economic Powers Act plaintiff to prepare to move for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. It said May 13 it is providing notice it will be filing for an injunction on June 26 (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

A product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the Court of International Trade held on May 15. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry.

The libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation opposed the government's bid to stay its case at the Court of International Trade challenging certain tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently filing a motion for summary judgment and expedited consideration of its case (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).

Twelve U.S. states, led by Oregon, filed a supplemental brief in their lawsuit against all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In it, the states said the Court of International Trade should enjoin enforcement of the IEEPA tariffs, set aside the agency decisions implementing the tariffs and declare the IEEPA tariffs "unlawful" (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 Trump administration on May 9 issued an executive order declaring that it will disfavor criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses in an effort to combat overregulation. Criminal customs enforcement likely won't be affected by the order, since the administration is placing a larger emphasis on trade enforcement and these cases arise out of statutes and not federal regulations, trade lawyers told us.