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).
A State Department notice declaring that all agency efforts to control international trade now constitute a "foreign affairs function" of the U.S. under the Administrative Procedure Act will ultimately be subject to the discretion of the courts, trade lawyers told us.
A panel of trade remedy authorities including a former Commerce Department assistant secretary and two U.K. government representatives surveyed March 13 the increasingly complicated global trade remedies realm, touching on how the two countries have reacted, in Georgetown University Law Center’s annual International Trade Update.
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.
Canada opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on March 5 to challenge the new U.S.-imposed 25% tariff on all non-energy goods and 10% tariff on energy goods from Canada, claiming that the measure violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade "as well as the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement." Canada said that the U.S. measures "appear to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations" under GATT and TFA provisions.
President Donald Trump will likely turn to Section 301 to enact his plans for "reciprocal" tariffs, various trade lawyers told Trade Law Daily. Following the president's announcement of his reciprocal tariff plan, which will purportedly tackle "non-reciprocal trading arrangements" with many of the U.S.'s trading partners starting April 2, speculation ensued as to the precise scope of the tariffs and their legal bases.