No national emergency or "unusual and extraordinary threat" exists to justify invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on all U.S. trading partners, the Liberty Justice Center argued. Filing its reply brief in support of its bid for both a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade, the conservative legal advocacy group argued that the trade court can review President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 5 sharply questioned importer Valeo North America's argument that the Commerce Department improperly included its T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. During a May 5 oral argument, Judges Todd Hughes, Richard Taranto and Kara Stoll pressed Valeo on its claim that Commerce distorted the scope language (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).

A group of five small importers filed their opposition to the U.S. government's motion to transfer their case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The importers, led by Simplified, argued that CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case because IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Emily Ley Paper v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's claim that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court, the U.S. argued. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on May 2, the government said Eteros' claim revolves around two "immigration-related matters," which CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).

The Commerce Department appropriately focused on the current availability of domestic steel as opposed to the availability at the time an importer placed a foreign order when considering Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government said the focus on current availability is in line with the "purpose of the Section 232 import measures," which are meant to "increase and improve domestic capacity over time" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).

The Court of International Trade on April 29 told the 12 states challenging President Donald Trump's tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act they may file a brief laying out their position on a group of five importers' motion for summary judgment against Trump's reciprocal tariffs by May 8. The court said in a text-only order that the brief, not to exceed 10,000 words, doesn't bar the states from filing their own motion at a later date, nor will the brief be construed as a "waiver or forfeiture of any claim or argument."

The Court of International Trade on May 2 held that importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates "maintain the essence of fish" and are thus "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 and not "food preparations" under heading 2106.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't confer the power to impose tariffs, California argued at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Responding to the government's motion to transfer the state's challenge -- which centers on President Donald Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs -- to the Court of International Trade, California argued that CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case, since "IEEPA does not provide for tariffs" (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The International Trade Commission defended its bid for mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the Court of International Trade's ruling striking down the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses in injury proceedings. The ITC said that it has standing to vie for mandamus relief and that the trade court abused its discretion in undercutting the commission's policy regarding the submission of confidential information (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).