Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 may be a more limited "fall-back option" for the Trump administration should the Supreme Court strike down all the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Dr. Mona Paulsen, law professor at the London School of Economic Law School, wrote in a blog post.

There are probably five justices who will find that the reciprocal tariffs were not permissible under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that the president used to impose them, according to Georgetown University Law Center Professor Marty Lederman. Lederman, a senior fellow in the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown, was one of two guests on the weekly Washington International Trade Association podcast that aired Nov. 7.

Three new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 6 on the legality of President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as his authority to impose tariffs, on the day after the Supreme Court appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. One suit was filed by three importers, led by Del Monte Fresh Produce and represented by customs lawyer Myron Barlow; another was filed by importer Turn5, represented by Crowell & Moring; and a third was filed by importer Netuno USA by trade lawyer Vinicius Adam (Del Monte Fresh Produce v. United States, CIT # 25-00244) (Netuno USA v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00245) (Turn5 v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00246).

Various members of the trade bar speculated that the president's tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act may face serious limits once the Supreme Court issues a decision in the lead cases on President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs. Following a Nov. 5 oral argument in which many of the justices appeared skeptical of Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA to impose tariffs, many lawyers have said change may be coming in the world of trade.

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 first class-action lawsuit against the president’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs was filed Nov. 4 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Smirk & Dagger Games v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 1:25-03857).

Two Trump appointees, along with the three liberal justices, had sharp questions for the Trump administration's advocate as the Supreme Court held a nearly three-hour hearing on the constitutionality of tariffs imposed around the world under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Importer Topcon Positioning Systems on Nov. 3 told the Court of International Trade that its "laser levels" are "surveying instruments," properly classified under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9015.30.4000, which provides for "levels" used for "surveying." In a motion for summary judgment, Topcon also argued that its accessories are, "in turn," classified under duty-free subheading 9015.90.0030, which covers accessories of surveying instruments (Topcon Positioning Systems v. United States, CIT # 14-00189).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held oral argument on Nov. 4 in a pair of cases on the International Trade Commission's treatment of business proprietary information in injury proceedings. Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen pressed Courtney McNamara, counsel for the ITC, on the commission's policy of treating questionnaire submissions as confidential; on the Court of International Trade's separate authority to publicize information deemed confidential by the ITC; and on whether notice should be provided to the commission prior to the trade court's exercise of that authority (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. #s 24-1566, 25-127).

Importer Lanxess argued again Oct. 31 that its polymerization accelerator -- a substance used to accelerate the chemical process of plastic manufacturing -- is properly classified as a “supported catalyst,” not as a chemical preparation (Lanxess Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00073).