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.
China opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on April 8 on the U.S. reciprocal tariffs, claiming that the duties violate the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, the Agreement on Customs Valuation and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. China's challenge covers the 34% additional tariff on Chinese imports that is set to take effect April 9, along with the 10% duty on imports from all trading partners, which took effect on April 5.
Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.
The Liberty Justice Center, a conservative litigation firm, issued a call for plaintiffs to challenge President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on all goods entering the U.S. The group is looking to challenge this use of IEEPA "under the major questions and nondelegation doctrines."
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit on behalf of paper importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, on April 3 challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose 20% tariffs on all goods from China. Filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Simplified laid out three constitutional and statutory claims against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs and one claim that the tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act for unlawfully modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his sweeping "retaliatory" tariffs (see 2504020086) has drawn serious speculation about whether the statute can serve as a proper basis for invoking the tariffs. Trade lawyers told us that potential issues arising from the use of IEEPA include the existence of tariff-making authority to address trade deficits under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the "major questions" doctrine and the way in which the tariffs were calculated.
To date, no major lawsuits challenging any of the new tariff actions taken by President Donald Trump have been filed. The reasons for that include high legal hurdles to success and inconsistency in the implementation of the tariffs, trade lawyers told us.
The U.S. this month arrested and charged a Pakistani-Canadian national with conspiracy to violate U.S. export controls after DOJ said he illegally shipped millions of dollars worth of controlled items to entities in Pakistan, including ones on the Entity List, all while hiding the true end-users from U.S. exporters.
The Department of the Treasury last week dropped sanctions against cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash following a review of the "novel legal and policy issues raised by use of financial sanctions against financial and commercial activity occurring within evolving technology and legal environments." Treasury told a Texas court it removed Tornado Cash from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list, arguing that a case against the sanctions listing should now be briefed on whether the issue is moot (Van Loon, et al. v. Department of the Treasury, W.D. Tex. # 23-00312).
Wisconsin man Gary Barnes doesn't have constitutional or prudential standing to challenge the president's right to impose tariffs, the U.S. argued in a March 21 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The government claimed that Barnes failed to "allege a particularized and concrete injury to himself," and instead claimed that "unidentified American consumers more generally" will be harmed by the supposed constitutional violations the president commits when imposing tariffs (Gary Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).