The U.S. filed its reply briefs in a pair of appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on whether challenges to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act belong in the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from the State of California and various members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, the government said the case "arises out of" President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, giving CIT exclusive jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) (State of California v. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The Court of International Trade on July 29 denied importers Johanna Foods' and Johanna Beverage Company's application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Judge Timothy Reif held that the importers failed to show "a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the threatened August 1, 2025 tariff" (Johanna Foods v. Executive Office of the President of the United States, CIT # 25-00155).
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. asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the latest International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade and to stay briefing on the companies' challenging the tariffs' motion for summary judgment pending resolution of the transfer motion. The government said four courts have found that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over cases challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, while just one has "declined to transfer the case to the CIT or dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction" (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
The Court of International Trade on July 28 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis threshold on goods from China, which was made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said they already have granted all the relief the importer is seeking, though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief.
There may be a "bifurcated" process for duty refund should the plaintiffs prevail in litigation over the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a trade lawyer said. That could include a court-ordered process in addition to a separate administrative process because of the volume of claims that will arise should the courts decide that IEEPA is not an appropriate authority for tariffs.
The Court of International Trade on July 28 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said Detroit Axle can't succeed in "obtaining the relief it seeks," since the trade court already granted the relief the importer seeks in the lead case on Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief pending appeal. The court then stayed the remainder of Detroit Axle's case pending resolution of the lead IEEPA tariff case.
Judge David Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas was assigned to the latest case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, in a text-only order. Ezra was appointed to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, though he was designated by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Texas court in 2013 to help manage the court's caseload (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
The U.S. government's "newfound" theory of jurisdiction in two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is "both convoluted and wrong," the importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, 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).
Wisconsin resident Gary Barnes' motion to have the Court of International Trade set aside its decision to dismiss his case against the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is an "unwarranted" motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said. Even if the motion is an amended complaint, as Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in ordering the government to respond, it fails to allege a "particularized, actual or imminent injury and should be dismissed," the U.S. said (Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).