The Court of International Trade on May 23 dismissed Wisconsin man Gary Barnes' case against the ability of the president to impose tariffs. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that Barnes didn't have standing because he failed to claim that any harm he would suffer by tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is "particularized" or "actual or imminent."
The Court of International Trade on May 23 dismissed Wisconsin man Gary Barnes' lawsuit challenging the president's ability to impose tariffs for lack of standing. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that Barnes, who alleged harm as a retiree on a fixed income concerned about higher prices and unconstitutional action, failed to allege harm that is "particularized" or "actual or imminent." The judge also affirmed the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case and related cases challenging trade action imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Importer Detroit Axle on May 21 moved the Court of International Trade for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment against President Donald Trump's elimination of the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods and tariffs on Chinese products. In its motion, the importer argued that it's likely to succeed on the merits of its case, which outlines two bases for finding Trump's actions unlawful: that the president exceeded his statutory authority in ending de minimis for China, and that the agency actions implementing the order are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 20 transferred a case challenging certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge T. Kent Wetherell largely rested his decision on Yoshida International v. U.S. -- the nearly 50-year-old decision sustaining President Richard Nixon's 10% duty surcharge imposed under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor (Emily Ley Paper d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
The Court of International Trade on May 21 held a second hearing in as many weeks on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The same three judges, Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, pressed both the government and counsel for 12 U.S. states challenging all IEEPA tariff actions on whether the statute allows for tariff action, as well as whether the courts can review if the declared emergencies are "unusual and extraordinary" and the extent to which the case is guided by Yoshida International v. U.S. (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the Court of International Trade's recent hearing in the lead case on the use of International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs bolsters its bid to transfer a similar case in the D.C. court to the trade court (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
Counsel for four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging certain tariff action taken by President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court's recent decision in AARP v. Trump supports its interlocutory appeal of a Montana district court's decision to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
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.
Twelve U.S. states challenging all tariff actions taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act traded briefs with the government on the legality of the tariffs ahead of a May 21 hearing on the states' motion for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. The parties sparred on whether the eight states that didn't act as direct importers have standing to challenge the tariffs, whether the IEEPA tariffs have a reasonable connection to the declared threats of trade deficits and the flow of fenantyl, and whether the term "regulate" in the statute confers the power to impose tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).