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 U.S. filed another defense of tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act last week at the Court of International Trade, more fulsomely embracing the notion that the president needs tariff-setting authority under IEEPA to address a host of foreign policy issues. Opposing a group of 11 importers' motion for judgment against the reciprocal tariffs and IEEPA tariffs on China, the government argued that "the success of the Nation" in "navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats" is "built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools," including IEEPA tariffs (Princess Awesome v. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
The government has 10 days to issue orders implementing the Court of International Trade’s May 28 permanent injunction shutting down International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, as well as the 10% and country-specific IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, according to a judgment issued by the court alongside its opinion. The government has already filed an appeal of the decision.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 27 heard arguments concerning the government's motion to transfer a case challenging International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs to the Court of International Trade and two importers' bid for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs. Judge Rudolph Contreras asked the government about what remedy the court could impose should it find for the plaintiffs and about the merits of the importers' claim that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, D. D.C. # 25-01248).
The Court of International Trade on May 28 vacated President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, all of which were issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court held that the retaliatory tariffs "exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs" and that the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico "fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders." Judges Gary Katzmann, Jane Restani and Timothy Reif permanently enjoined the tariffs, declaring that if the tariffs are "unlawful as to Plaintiff they are unlawful as to all."
The World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body on May 23 heard China's first request to establish a dispute panel on Canada's surtax on Chinese products, including electric vehicles and steel and aluminum products, the WTO said. Canada said it's not ready to accept the panel at this time, punting the issue to the next DSB meeting, which is scheduled for June 23.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
In a May 20 amicus curiae brief for California’s challenge of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, NYU’s Brennan Center laid out the legislative history of IEEPA, arguing it doesn’t support a ruling that the law was meant to grant the president tariff powers (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
The Court of International Trade on May 23 assigned a case challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold on goods from China to Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani. The court has assigned these same three judges to all cases challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs.
Plaintiffs challenging tariff action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in a D.C. court said a Florida court's recent decision transferring a separate IEEPA tariff case to the Court of International Trade doesn't settle the jurisdictional issue. Filing a brief on May 22, importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind said the Florida court "came to the wrong conclusion" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).