Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421, not “other” catalytic reactors under 3815, the Court of International Trade ruled April 29.

The U.S. offered its most fulsome defense of President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs to date, submitting a reply to a group of five importers' motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on April 29. The government argued that the text, context, history and purpose of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president impose tariffs and that IEEPA doesn't confer an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the president (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.

Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who served in that role in President Donald Trump's first term, told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that he thinks "there’s a reasonable chance the [Court of International Trade (CIT)] would enjoin" tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. Trump used IEEPA to levy 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico over fentanyl and migration, as well as 20% tariffs on China over fentanyl, and used it to levy 10% tariffs on countries other than those three, and an additional 125% tariffs on Chinese goods.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 28 issued a pair of decisions rejecting challenges from three exporters to the Commerce Department's decision to deny them separate antidumping duty rates in the 2012-13 and 2014-15 reviews of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes said the exporters' claims on whether the agency can "deem decisive an exporter's failure to establish lack of state control of management selection" without more proof of state control over export activities were precluded by the appellate court's recent holding in Pirelli Tyre v. U.S.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian legal advocacy group that recently brought a case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on behalf of 11 importers, has had "preliminary" talks with the other advocacy groups that have brought cases challenging the tariffs on whether to proceed with separate cases. Molly Nixon, attorney at the foundation, told us she's "in touch" with the two other groups who have brought cases against the tariffs, the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the Liberty Justice Center, but that nothing is confirmed about whether the groups will combine cases.

A third case challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been filed at the Court of International Trade by a group of 11 companies, most of which make tabletop games. The companies, led by clothing maker Princess Awesome LLC, argue that the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs, Trump's declared national emergencies fail to meet the "statutory requirement of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat'" and IEEPA unconstitutionally transfers legislative power to the president (Princess Awesome v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00078).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on April 25 transferred a case filed by four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the tariffs on Canada issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen held that two cases establishing the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, confirm CIT's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving IEEPA, given that IEEPA has the "same operative language as that contained in the TWEA" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D.Mont. # 4:25-00026).

The Court of International Trade on April 24 assigned a case from 12 U.S. states challenging all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani -- the same three judges assigned to another suit challenging IEEPA trade action (The State of Oregon, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

A group of constitutional scholars, lawyers, retired federal judges and former U.S. senators and politicians filed an amicus brief at the Court of International Trade in the case on President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. The amici, led by former Virginia senator and governor George Allen, argued that IEEPA "cannot bear [the] weight" of Trump's trade action, adding that the statute only permits "limited and targeted actions under narrow conditions" and not "sweeping economic realignment" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).