The U.S. on May 12 opposed four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's bid for an injunction against tariffs imposed on Canada under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's resolution of the tribal members' appeal of a Montana district court's order transferring the case to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The U.S. filed a second motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner, Doris Cheng, in a customs penalty case after the Court of International Trade rejected the first bid for default judgment for failing to support its claim for a nearly $3.4 million penalty. In its second attempt to secure default judgment, the U.S. defended its claim that the merchandise at issue is valued at nearly $3.4 million (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

The Israeli government moved for judgment May 9 in the Court of International Trade in its case challenging the International Trade Commission’s final injury determinations regarding brass rod antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The commission failed to consider the impact of Israel’s conflict with the terrorist group Hamas on Israel’s sole brass rod manufacturer, it said (Government of Israel v. United States, CIT # 24-00197).

Aegis Security, a customs broker involved in two U.S.-brought suits to collect duties that have gone unpaid for decades (see 2503030043 and 2504180051), moved May 8 for a more definite complaint in one. In the more recent complaint filed this year, Aegis said the government failed to provide an adequately detailed explanation of the facts behind its claim (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 25-00051).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

A number of importers self-describing as “small businesses in various fields” and led by Princess Awesome, a girls’ clothing seller, added a third amicus curiae brief to the growing number opposing President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy tariffs (see 2505120057 and 2504240028). They said they filed to “emphasize the irreparable harm caused by the President’s arbitrary and ever-changing tariff policy” (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

Importer Amoena argued May 9 again that their mastectomy brassieres should have been classified as medical accessories, not “other” brassieres, saying that “a straightforward ‘visual review’” of the products wasn’t enough on its own to classify them. It also asked the trade court to accept certain apparently unaddressed facts on the record (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

In seeking transfer of an International Emergency Economic Powers Act case to the Court of International Trade, the U.S. said May 8 that such a transfer is necessary even when “there is doubt” about CIT’s jurisdiction. If a case’s merits must be decided first, this would “effectively” destroy CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction over tariff matters, it said (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The U.S. opposed importer Inspired Ventures' bid for court-annexed mediation in the company's case against CBP's decision to put two of its rubber tire entries on hold under suspicions the goods had a high risk of tariff evasion. The government said the dispute between Inspired and the U.S. is "legal in nature" and thus "not amenable to mediation" (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).