The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation against the company for its success at the trade court regarding the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers, the U.S. said. Filing a reply brief last week in support of its motion to dismiss the case, the government argued that Eteros' case doesn't challenge the "administration and enforcement" of an import transaction" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).

CBP properly found that importers American Pacific Plywood, InterGlobal Forest and U.S. Global Forest evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on plywood from China via Cambodian producer LB Wood, the Court of International Trade held on July 9. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained the evasion determination over a host of legal, procedural and factual claims made by InterGlobal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit fielded a total of 20 amicus briefs regarding the lawsuit against the tariffs President Donald Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 18 of which supported the importers and U.S. states challenging the tariffs. The amicus briefs came from 191 current members of Congress, various business interests, former government officials, advocacy groups and economists (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA limiting the ability for lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions doesn't affect the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction against President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 12 U.S. states told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 8. The states, led by Oregon, argued in a reply brief that the trade court's injunction, which applied to parties not part of the lawsuit against the tariffs, is necessary to afford the states complete relief (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

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.

Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden resigned from the court on July 4 and was sworn in as deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture on July 7. Vaden was confirmed by the U.S. Senate last month to serve in the number two role at USDA (see 2506120064).

Five different groups of amici on July 8 filed briefs in the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. All five briefs argued against the tariffs, though they differed in their specific approach or legal arguments (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

Five importers challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the government's defense of the tariffs' legality falls short. The importers, represented by the conservative advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, argued that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs, IEEPA is precluded from being used to address trade deficits due to the existence of Section 122, and the Court of International Trade was right to issue an injunction against the tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general in the Barack Obama administration, will argue against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31. The Liberty Justice Center, the conservative advocacy group that initially brought the case on behalf of various importers, tapped Katyal to argue the case at the Federal Circuit (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The Court of International Trade on July 3 sustained CBP's finding that importers Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on glycine from China via Indonesia-based exporter PT Newtrend Nutrition Ingredient. Judge Stephen Vaden said CBP adequately supported its finding that PT Newtrend's Indonesian factory couldn't produce all the glycine it shipped to the U.S. and that at least some of the exported glycine was sourced in China.