After a federal district court in Montana denied rehearing (see 2506020059), four members of the Blackfeet Nation appealed June 9 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as they continue to challenge the transfer of their International Emergency Economic Powers Act case out of the state. They argued again that the Constitution differentiates between commerce with foreign nations and commerce with Native Americans and that the trade court has only been granted jurisdiction over cases involving the former (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th. Cir. # 25-2717).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 11 told the parties in the appeal concerning tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to file motions governing future proceedings in the appeal within 14 days of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all IEEPA tariff action pending appeal. Parties in the D.C. Circuit case agreed to an expedited briefing schedule in the appeal, prompting the court's instruction to set a briefing schedule. The parties' proposed schedules are due 14 days after June 10, which is the date the Federal Circuit stayed the CIT ruling (see 2506100076) (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-1248).

Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA filed a motion for judgment June 5 after a host of its other claims against the U.S. were dismissed in January (see 2501220064). It said that the Commerce Department wrongly rejected two of its Section 232 exclusion requests by claiming an authority based on national security that it didn’t actually have and two more by treating prospective presidential proclamations as retrospective (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Importer AB Specialty Silicones' launched another case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's classification of its specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds. In a June 4 complaint, AB challenged the classification of one entry of its silicone compounds, arguing that it should only pay 3.7% duties for the product under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2910.90.9051 or 3% under subheading 3910.00.0000 (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00099).

The U.S. renewed a cross-motion for judgment June 6 regarding the classification of importer HyAxiom’s hydrogen fuel cell generator components, saying the importer’s product was “a multi-functional machine” classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8479. The government’s initial motion was dismissed by Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu in August 2024 (see 2408290019) (HyAxiom v. United States, CIT # 21-00057).

After a second remand by the Court of International Trade (see 2503110034), the Commerce Department said it analyzed five additional (k)(2) factors, as ordered, and as a result determined that exporter Elysium Tiles’ composite tiles weren't actually covered by antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tiles from China (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

The government withdrew its emergency stay motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 3 after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs pending the government's appeal of the decision (see 2506030048). The U.S. said Judge Rudolph Contreras' decision staying his judgment "renders moot the government's motion in this Court for a stay pending appeal. The government is also seeking an emergency stay of the Court of International Trade's decision vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under IEEPA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, though CAFC has issued an administrative stay while it mulls the emergency stay bid (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

Mediation at the Court of International Trade in a customs penalty suit between the U.S. and importer Katana Racing resulted in a settlement of all issues, CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves reported on June 6 (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).