The U.S. District Court for the District Columbia set a hearing for May 27 to hear two children's educational materials producers' motion for a preliminary injunction against all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In a text-only order, Judge Rudolph Contreras set the hearing to take place at 3 p.m. EDT both on the preliminary injunction bid and the U.S. government's motion to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).

In a complaint brought April 28, importer Chamberlain Group said CBP wrongly found its entryway intercom and camera systems had originated from China, not Mexico (Chamberlain Group v. United States, CIT # 24-00198).

Two Illinois producers of children’s educational materials challenged April 22 President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, adding their complaint to a growing pile making similar claims (see 2504250038, 2504140061 and 2504230067). They, like other challengers, are seeking a preliminary injunction, saying that their businesses are already suffering irreparable harm as a result of the tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, D. D.C. # 25-01248).

Cable importer Cyber Power Systems brought two more classification disputes to the Court of International Trade April 28 (see 2504010067 and 2305170023 (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00199).

An environmental conservation group said April 25 in a motion for judgment that the National Marine Fisheries Service had again failed to reach a proper comparability finding regarding New Zealand’s fisheries threatening the existence of the Maui dolphin -- whose total population as a species has dwindled to under 50 (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on April 28 denied a motion from four members of the Blackfeet Nation that sought to keep the established schedule on its motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada after the Montana court transferred the matter to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. United States, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).

Judge Stephen Vaden last week responded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's invitation to respond to the International Trade Commission's petition for writ of mandamus regarding Vaden's decision finding the ITC's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful. Vaden said the ITC lacks standing to petition for mandamus review, since the information belongs to the parties taking part in the injury proceeding and not the commission, and that the petition fails on the merits (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).

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

Labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates filed a lawsuit this week against Starbucks on behalf of eight individuals who were trafficked and forced to work on "Starbucks-controlled coffee plantations in Brazil." The complaint, brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks class certification for all trafficked laborers in Brazil and alleges that Starbucks knowingly benefitted from this slave labor, which took place on thousands of supplier plantations (John Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation, D.D.C. # 25-01261).

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.