The U.S. filed its reply brief in the lead case on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing, among other things, that the Court of International Trade doesn't have the power to issue a nationwide injunction vacating the tariffs and that IEEPA plainly allows the president to impose tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
A group of constitutional scholars, legal historians, a former appellate judge, a former attorney general and three former U.S. senators urged the Supreme Court on July 17 to take up two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The amici argued that President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs clearly violate the constitutional order and, if upheld, would let the president use IEEPA " to reshape U.S. economic policy, and indeed the global economy more generally, without involving Congress" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 17 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case following its decision to deny exporter Carbon Activated's bid for a panel rehearing of the court's decision. In its decision, CAFC Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen upheld the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material in the 2018-19 review of the AD order on Chinese activated carbon (see 2505090048) (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
Appellants and domestic mattress petitioners objected July 8 to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit order to remove mattress importer Zinus’ own appeal from the combined appeal (see 2506250052) (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
The Court of International Trade's recent decision in Worldwide Door Components v. U.S. regarding a scope decision on aluminum extrusions "has no bearing" on the court's consideration of a pair of scope cases regarding freight rail couplers, petitioner the Coalition of Freight Rail Couplers said. Responding to importer Wabtec's notice of supplemental authority regarding the Worldwide decision, the petitioner said the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions is "distinct" from the scope of the AD/CVD orders on freight couplers at issue in the present case (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT #'s 23-00160, -00161).
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 Court of International Trade on July 10 heard oral argument in importer Detroit Axle's case against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani pressed counsel for both the U.S. and the importer on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the president to take such action, given the specific language at play in both IEEPA and 19 U.S.C. 1321, the de minimis statute (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 10 denied exporter Carbon Activated's bid for a panel rehearing of its antidumping duty case on the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material in the 2018-19 review of the AD order on Chinese activated carbon. Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen denied the request (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
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).
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).