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.

Chapter1, a small Nevada-based importer represented by boutique litigation firm Gerstein Harrow, filed a case at the Court of International Trade on May 29 seeking class certification for all importers that have paid tariffs recently invalidated by the trade court. The suit, if successful in challenging the tariffs and establishing class certification, would provide refunds for all companies that have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).

The end of reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed over fentanyl smuggling from China, Canada and Mexico is on hold until an appellate court decides if the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was illegal for those purposes.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't allow the president to impose tariffs, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on May 29. A day after the Court of International Trade vacated and permanently enjoined all the tariff executive orders issued under IEEPA by President Donald Trump, the D.C. court went a step further and categorically ruled that IEEPA doesn't include the power to impose tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-1248).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 issued an administrative stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency motion to stay the CIT decision (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on May 23 denied the government's motion to dismiss four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's appeal of a Montana court's decision to transfer a case challenging various tariff actions to the Court of International Trade. The appellate court also stayed proceedings until the Montana court rules on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the transfer order (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).