Plaintiffs in the primary case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the Supreme Court on Sept. 5 that they consent to the high court's review of the case. Responding to the government's petition for writ of certiorari filed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against many of the tariffs, the plaintiffs, consisting of five importers, said Supreme Court review is "essential," and the court's "final word is needed urgently" in light of the harm wrought by the tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).
The Supreme Court may be willing to adopt certain arguments made by the dissenting judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us. Specifically, certain justices may be willing to adopt Judge Richard Taranto's discussion of the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine, though others were more skeptical about how much tariff authority the court is willing to cede to the president under IEEPA and these two doctrines.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
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).
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).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 12 affirmed a federal D.C. court's dismissal of Venezuelan national Samark Jose Lopez Bello's suit against his designation as a narcotics trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Samark Jose Lopez Bello v. Andrea M. Gacki, D.C. Cir. # 21-01727).