The U.S. filed another defense of tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act last week at the Court of International Trade, more fulsomely embracing the notion that the president needs tariff-setting authority under IEEPA to address a host of foreign policy issues. Opposing a group of 11 importers' motion for judgment against the reciprocal tariffs and IEEPA tariffs on China, the government argued that "the success of the Nation" in "navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats" is "built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools," including IEEPA tariffs (Princess Awesome v. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 27 heard arguments concerning the government's motion to transfer a case challenging International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs to the Court of International Trade and two importers' bid for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs. Judge Rudolph Contreras asked the government about what remedy the court could impose should it find for the plaintiffs and about the merits of the importers' claim that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, D. D.C. # 25-01248).

Plaintiffs challenging tariff action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in a D.C. court said a Florida court's recent decision transferring a separate IEEPA tariff case to the Court of International Trade doesn't settle the jurisdictional issue. Filing a brief on May 22, importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind said the Florida court "came to the wrong conclusion" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).

The Court of International Trade on May 23 dismissed Wisconsin man Gary Barnes' case against the ability of the president to impose tariffs. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that Barnes didn't have standing because he failed to claim that any harm he would suffer by tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is "particularized" or "actual or imminent."

The Commerce Department improperly failed to respond to an antidumping duty petitioner's claim that a submission from AD review respondent Assan Aluminyum regarding its duty drawback adjustment didn't rebut, clarify or correct information submitted in the petitioner's rebuttal, the Court of International Trade held on May 21. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce can't pursue the goal of calculating an accurate dumping margin "without regard for procedural constraints."

Importer Detroit Axle on May 21 moved the Court of International Trade for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment against President Donald Trump's elimination of the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods and tariffs on Chinese products. In its motion, the importer argued that it's likely to succeed on the merits of its case, which outlines two bases for finding Trump's actions unlawful: that the president exceeded his statutory authority in ending de minimis for China, and that the agency actions implementing the order are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 20 transferred a case challenging certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge T. Kent Wetherell largely rested his decision on Yoshida International v. U.S. -- the nearly 50-year-old decision sustaining President Richard Nixon's 10% duty surcharge imposed under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor (Emily Ley Paper d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).

The Court of International Trade on May 21 held a second hearing in as many weeks on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The same three judges, Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, pressed both the government and counsel for 12 U.S. states challenging all IEEPA tariff actions on whether the statute allows for tariff action, as well as whether the courts can review if the declared emergencies are "unusual and extraordinary" and the extent to which the case is guided by Yoshida International v. U.S. (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

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 May 19 granted importer Inspired Ventures' motion to refer its customs suit to court-annexed mediation. Judge Lisa Wang disagreed with the government's reasons for opposing mediation, which included claims that the controversy in the case is "legal in nature" and thus "not amenable to mediation" (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).