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 June 2 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on Indian forged steel fluid end blocks, rejecting claims from the petitioners, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., that the agency should have expanded its use of adverse facts available. Judge Stephen Vaden said "neither statute nor case law requires such an inequitable result," given the limited nature of the gaps on the record.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 2 said the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction via Section 1581(i) to hear California's challenge to all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs are laws of the U.S. for purposes of Section 1581(i), since they modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and the law implementing the HTS, 19 U.S.C. 3004, says the HTS includes modifications made by the president (State of California v. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The Court of International Trade on June 3 left the question of whether to stay its ruling vacating all executive orders imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said that CAFC's "impending consideration of the motion to stay before it makes it unnecessary for this court to rule on the USCIT Motions to Stay" (V.O.S. Selections v. United States, CIT # 25-00066) (The State of Oregon v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, CIT # 25-00077).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 3 stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs, pending the government's appeal of the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Rudolph Contreras said a stay is "appropriate to protect the President’s ability to identify and respond to threats to the U.S. economy and national security" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).

Georgetown University law professor Jennifer Hillman said that while she expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to take months to decide if the tariff actions under emergency powers weren't legal, the court might not stay the vacation of the orders during that time.

The U.S. and Detroit Axle, an importer challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold for Chinese products, sparred at the Court of International Trade on whether to stay the company's case in light of the trade court's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The U.S. on June 2 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for an emergency stay of the D.C. district court's decision last week finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't confer tariff-setting authority (see 2505290037). The government said that while the district court's preliminary injunction only extends to the plaintiffs, two small importers, the ruling undermines the president's ability to negotiate trade deals and wield broader diplomatic power (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Court of International Trade, in a decision made public May 29, said failing to act as a mandatory respondent isn't "unrelated to government control" for purposes of getting a separate antidumping duty rate. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce isn't required to establish that companies are part of the Chinese government, because that is the presumption. Rather, he said, it's the companies that must show evidence if they are independent of the government.

Following decisions from the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidating tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, questions remain about which court has the right view on whether the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases on IEEPA tariffs. Relatedly, the issue affects where importers may file suit to contest the imposition of IEEPA tariffs or seek refunds of duties paid under tariff action found to be unlawful.