The U.S. filed a supplemental brief on Dec. 3 urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to affirm a Montana court's decision to transfer a group of tribal members' tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade. The government said the plaintiffs will be able to fully adjudicate their claims at the trade court and that the 9th Circuit can't review the Montana court's transfer order, since it's not a final order nor an "immediately appealable collateral order" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
Importer USP Holdings on Nov. 20 voluntarily dismissed its case at the Court of International Trade regarding the applicability of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions. USP brought its case last month to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its steel entries were improperly denied Section 232 exclusions. Scott Johnston, counsel for USP, said in an email that the company ultimately received relief administratively after CBP agreed to void the denials. However, the case was initially filed, since the relief "came right at/after the 180-day period to challenge the Protest denials in the CIT." (USP Holdings v. United States, CIT # 25-00227).
President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.
Should the Supreme Court rule that the tariffs administered under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are not valid, importers of record, who could potentially receive duty refunds, may also end up in legal battles with others who shared in the importer's tariff burden, founding member and principal of Sandler and Travis said during Flexport's Nov. 12 webinar on tariff trends.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 may be a more limited "fall-back option" for the Trump administration should the Supreme Court strike down all the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Dr. Mona Paulsen, law professor at the London School of Economic Law School, wrote in a blog post.
There are probably five justices who will find that the reciprocal tariffs were not permissible under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that the president used to impose them, according to Georgetown University Law Center Professor Marty Lederman. Lederman, a senior fellow in the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown, was one of two guests on the weekly Washington International Trade Association podcast that aired Nov. 7.
Two Trump appointees, along with the three liberal justices, had sharp questions for the Trump administration's advocate as the Supreme Court held a nearly three-hour hearing on the constitutionality of tariffs imposed around the world under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
CBP erroneously found that importer Superon Schweisstechnik's stainless steel round wires aren't coated in a "flux material" and thus misclassified three types of the wires, Superon argued in an Oct. 30 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. The importer faulted CBP for using the "conventional test methods" on the wires' coating, "rather than the globally recognized specialized methods necessary for identifying" the type of coating on the wires (Superon Schweisstechnik India v. United States, CIT # 21-00570).
The 12 U.S. states challenging President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20, arguing that the text of IEEPA doesn't allow for any tariffs to be imposed and that Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs to combat the flow of fentanyl don't meet the statute's other requirements (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).