The state of California opened a lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of California on April 16 against President Donald Trump's ability to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. The two-count complaint claims that Trump acted beyond his statutory authority granted by IEEPA to impose the "reciprocal" tariffs and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, and that Trump's tariff actions usurp legislative authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The Court of International Trade on April 17 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, which was initially opened in 1996. After the agency calculated AD margins for the seven respondents from the original 1995-96 investigation period on remand, a group of intervenors, led by NS Brands, challenged Commerce's decision not to find a changed circumstance or initiate new shipper reviews for the intervenors. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that they could have been brought under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, instead of under the plaintiffs' jurisdictional claim under Section 1581(c). The judge also found that the intervenors lacked standing to sue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 14 denied court-appointed amicus Andrew Dhuey access to confidential filings in an appeal on the International Trade Commission's treatment of business proprietary information. Judge Evan Wallach said Dhuey "has not shown" that access to this information is "necessary for him to file his proposed amicus brief." The judge said the motion is "denied without prejudice to Mr. Dhuey raising arguments" on "why access to particular confidential information cited in the United States’ brief is needed to assist the court" (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The Court of International Trade on April 15 denied importer Under the Weather's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods." Judge Timothy Reif said the proposed amended complaint "was filed after undue delay and is futile."
In an April 14 opinion, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department’s final determination in its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China. He upheld the department’s usual two-step surrogate selection process under Loper Bright, but he found that Commerce erred in its selection of comparable merchandise for chlorinated isos.
The U.S. filed motions to transfer the two cases challenging the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed in federal district courts to the Court of International Trade. In both cases, the government said the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction over the claims raised by both lawsuits, since they "arise out of laws providing for tariffs or the administration or enforcement of those laws" (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
Five importers challenging the constitutionality of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as a source of tariff-setting authority plan to file a motion for a preliminary injunction in the coming days, counsel for the companies told us. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, said the PI bid will request an injunction on the collection of all tariffs issued under the IEEPA.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 11 invited the Court of International Trade to respond to the government's petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trade court's recent decision finding the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful (see 2503270057). In a per curiam order, CAFC invited Judge Stephen Vaden, the author of the opinion, to respond no later than April 22. The court said any reply in support of the petition is due "no later than seven days after the last-filed response." The U.S. filed its mandamus bid last week, asking the appellate court to order the trade court to retain the commission's designation of information as business proprietary information unless the submitting party consents to disclosure (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).
Petitioner Nucor filed an opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 7 challenging a trade court ruling that favored exporter KG Dongbu Steel, the mandatory respondent in a 2019 countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from Korea. It said the Commerce Department had “plainly satisfied” the legal standard for changing its position from one review to another (Nucor Corp. v. KG Dongbu Steel Co., Fed. Cir. # 25-1411).