The America First Legal Foundation, an advocacy group aligned with President Donald Trump, argued that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia got the question of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction wrong in a case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Filing an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation provided an alternative basis for the appellate court to find that the case belongs at CIT: IEEPA provides for embargoes for reasons other than the "protection of the public health or safety" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

CBP's decision to substitute the International Labor Organization indicators of forced labor for the "statutory definition of forced labor" is "arbitrary and capricious" and exceeds the agency's statutory authority, exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing a reply in support of its motion for judgment to the Court of International Trade on June 30, Kingtom argued that while CBP can use the ILO indicators "as part of its framework for determining if forced labor exists," it can't wholesale swap the indicators for the term's statutory definition (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public July 2 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to find that antidumping duty respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos and an unnamed supplier, referred to as "Supplier A," are neither affiliates nor partners. Judge Claire Kelly said the parties aren't affiliates, since neither party is reliant on the other nor controls the other, nor are they partners, since the companies aren't involved in a "cooperative business endeavor in which they share risk and reward."

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 Commerce Department on June 30 reversed its finding that the Moroccan government's tax fine and penalty reduction program is de facto specific, slightly lowering respondent OCP's countervailing duty rate. Commerce said in light of the Court of International Trade's decision rejecting its de facto specificity analysis, it's finding, under respectful protest, that the program isn't de facto specific (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California erred in finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the State of California's lawsuit against the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, California argued in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Among other things, California argued that its suit "arises out of" IEEPA, the substantive law "giving rise to the claims," and not President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs, as the district court held (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).

The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 27 in the appeal on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the district court got the jurisdiction and merits questions wrong. The government said the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia took a "nonsensical" view of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction and that, contrary to the court's ruling, IEEPA does confer tariff-setting authority (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Supreme Court's recent decision to eliminate nationwide injunctions won't impact the Court of International Trade, attorneys told us. The trade court is a court of national jurisdiction and will keep the right to issue nationwide injunctions for issues within its jurisdiction, the attorneys said.

The Court of International Trade on June 26 heard oral argument in a suit from U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy against the Biden administration's decision to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Judge Timothy Reif heard from DOJ, the plaintiffs and counsel for various solar cell importers and exporters on whether Auxin waited too long to file suit and the propriety of applying retroactive relief, given that the affected importers would be subject to massive antidumping and countervailing duties without a chance for review (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).