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. is using "magical thinking" as the basis for its defense in the case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, said Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Hand2Mind and Learning Resources, the plaintiffs in the suit currently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In a reply brief, California said Aug. 18 that the U.S. had conceded the state’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs “arises out of” the IEEPA. The government’s following argument, that it also arises from Trump’s recent executive orders modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to implement the tariffs, fails because those orders weren’t authorized by a “law of the United States,” it said (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).
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.
Importers' argument that the tariffs imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act don't arise out of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. "strains the statutory text past the breaking point," the government argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
Sidley trade practice co-lead Ted Muprhy advised clients to prepare now for a potential court ruling overturning International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs by downloading import reports from ACE to demonstrate how much they have paid in IEEPA tariffs since they began. He also said they should do so each month from now on, until there is a final resolution in court.
Gary Barnes, the pro se litigant challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs, responded on Aug. 11 to the government's opposition to his motion for reconsideration of the Court of International Trade's decision to dismiss the case for lack of standing. Barnes argued that his amendment to his original complaint helps establish that he has suffered a direct injury from the tariffs (Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will likely rule against the Trump administration in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it's unclear under what exact rationale the court will do so, said Peter Harrell, a former National Security Council official during the Biden administration.
The five importers challenging the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act said there's "no basis" for the claim that there's "no substitute" for the IEEPA tariffs and recent trade deals Trump has made (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1813)
Conservative advocacy group New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a motion for judgment and opposed motions to stay and transfer its newest case, brought before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of outdoor cooking products maker FireDisc and other importers to challenge President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).