President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should be upheld as a valid exercise of Section 338, the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute argued in a June 24 amicus brief af the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Claiming that an executive order can be upheld under a different statute than the statute originally claimed by the president, the institute said the IEEPA tariffs "fit Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 like a glove" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 23 upheld a jury's determination that importer Sigma Corp. is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its imports were subject to antidumping duties. Judges Michelle Friedland and Mark Bennett said no errors of law were made against Sigma and that the federal district court, not the Court of International Trade, had jurisdiction in the case (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).

Counsel for the importer plaintiffs in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has no plans to preemptively petition the Supreme Court to review the case in light of plaintiffs in a separate IEEPA tariffs suit doing so. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center and counsel for the CAFC IEEPA plaintiffs, told us that he has "no plans to file a petition with the Supreme Court prior to a decision by the Federal Circuit," though he said "circumstances could change that."

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president suspend the de minimis threshold to respond to a national emergency notwithstanding Section 321's limits on eliminating or modifying the threshold, the U.S. argued. Urging the Court of International Trade to side with the government in importer Detroit Axle's suit against the elimination of the de minimis threshold on Chinese goods, the U.S. said the IEEPA's language lets the president void pre-existing privileges granted by other authorities, such as Section 321 (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The Court of International Trade on June 20 upheld the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves reviewed and sustained the ITC's decision to cumulate the imports from the four countries and its determination regarding the imports' "volume, price effects, and impact."

The Supreme Court on June 20 denied a motion from importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind to expedite consideration of their petition to have the high court take up their lawsuit against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

The Court of International Trade on June 17 denied importer Global Aluminum Distributor's motion for attorney's fees in an Enforce and Protect Act case. Judge Richard Eaton held that the government's position in the EAPA case was "substantially justified" (H&E Home v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).

Only the Supreme Court can provide the "finality and certainty that America's businesses need" in ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs, libertarian advocacy group the Washington Legal Foundation argued in a June 18 amicus brief. Urging the high court to take up two importers' IEEPA suit prior to full review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation argued that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs and that only SCOTUS can "provide certainty and finality on that question" (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to reject two importers' bid to have the high court hear their case on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides for tariffs on an expedited basis. Sauer said the importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, haven't justified "such a stark departure from established practice," which would see the Supreme Court take up the case prior to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit weighing in (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

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.