Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court eliminated the judicial practice of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The decision stands as a watershed moment in administrative law, handing much more power to the judiciary where it is asked to review agency decisions. Trade law is not exempt from the ruling, with judges at the Court of International Trade and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit increasingly being asked to interpret the relevant statutes, taking discretion away from the Commerce Department and CBP.  

">
Trade Law Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login

Statutory Interpretation

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court eliminated the judicial practice of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The decision stands as a watershed moment in administrative law, handing much more power to the judiciary where it is asked to review agency decisions. Trade law is not exempt from the ruling, with judges at the Court of International Trade and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit increasingly being asked to interpret the relevant statutes, taking discretion away from the Commerce Department and CBP.  

to
articlessource documents
Refine Topic Search
Clear Terms

Search Primer

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

None of DOJ's Section 301 Tariff Defenses ‘Carries the Day,’ Plaintiffs Say
August 4, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

The Trump administration’s “radical escalation” of Section 301 tariffs on lists 3 and 4A Chinese goods “transgressed the statutory limits carefully delineated by Congress” when it crafted the 1974 Trade Act and delegated foreign-trade powers to the executive branch, Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said. This came in a cross-motion for judgment on the agency record filed the evening of Aug. 2 at the Court of International Trade in docket 1:21-cv-52. Akin Gump’s proposed order asks that the lists 3 and 4A tariffs be vacated, that any duties paid be refunded with interest and that the government be “permanently enjoined” from imposing the tariffs again.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Domestic Producers Seek Payouts of Delinquency Interest Under CDSOA for Many ADD Orders
May 26, 2021 by Brian Feito|Litigation

Domestic manufacturers and producers of a wide range of goods covered by antidumping duty orders filed motions for judgment May 24 seeking court orders that CBP distribute delinquency interest that they say should be paid to affected domestic producers under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases