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.
Brazil requested dispute consultations with the U.S. at the World Trade Organization on Aug. 11 regarding the 50% tariffs that President Donald Trump recently imposed on Brazilian goods. Brazil said the measures are inconsistent with U.S. obligations under Articles I and II of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and Articles 23.1 and 23.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 11 that stripping the president of his authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would lead to "ruinous" economic consequences in light of the trade deals reached with the EU, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the U.K. (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1813).
A petition from two importers for the Supreme Court to review whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows for tariffs will be considered by the high court on Sept. 29. After briefing concluded on whether the Supreme Court should take up the case, the matter was distributed for the court's Sept. 29 conference, where it will determine which cases make up its October 2025 term (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
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 Learning Resources and Hand2Mind urged the Supreme Court on Aug. 5 to take up their challenge to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prior to their case being heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the grounds that the high court may need to do so to hear the case in tandem with the lead lawsuit on the IEEPA tariffs. The importers said the Solicitor General himself suggested this course of action (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York on July 30 permanently enjoined the U.S. from enforcing its International Criminal Court-related sanctions against two law professors. Judge Jesse Furman held that the sanctions impermissibly violate the professors' First Amendment free speech rights and that the law professors, Gabor Rona at the Cardozo School of Law and Lisa Davis at CUNY School of Law, likely will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction (Gabor Rona v. Trump, S.D.N.Y. # 25-03114).
A total of 12 amicus briefs were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week in conjunction with arguments from two importers challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on July 29-30 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
All active judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 heard oral argument in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The 11 judges peppered counsel for the government and the parties challenging the tariffs, which include five importers and 12 U.S. states, with questions about whether the statute authorizes tariffs at all; whether there are limits to that tariff authority, should it exist; and whether the major questions or non-delegation doctrines strip IEEPA of its ability to convey tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).