Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.
Canada filed a dispute consultation request with the U.S. at the World Trade Organization on April 7, alleging that the U.S. government's 25% additional tariff on automobiles and automobile parts violate WTO obligations. The request said the duties "appear to be inconsistent with" U.S. obligations under Articles II and VIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.
The Liberty Justice Center, a conservative litigation firm, issued a call for plaintiffs to challenge President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on all goods entering the U.S. The group is looking to challenge this use of IEEPA "under the major questions and nondelegation doctrines."
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit on behalf of paper importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, on April 3 challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose 20% tariffs on all goods from China. Filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Simplified laid out three constitutional and statutory claims against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs and one claim that the tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act for unlawfully modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his sweeping "retaliatory" tariffs (see 2504020086) has drawn serious speculation about whether the statute can serve as a proper basis for invoking the tariffs. Trade lawyers told us that potential issues arising from the use of IEEPA include the existence of tariff-making authority to address trade deficits under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the "major questions" doctrine and the way in which the tariffs were calculated.
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.
To date, no major lawsuits challenging any of the new tariff actions taken by President Donald Trump have been filed. The reasons for that include high legal hurdles to success and inconsistency in the implementation of the tariffs, trade lawyers told us.
Wisconsin man Gary Barnes doesn't have constitutional or prudential standing to challenge the president's right to impose tariffs, the U.S. argued in a March 21 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The government claimed that Barnes failed to "allege a particularized and concrete injury to himself," and instead claimed that "unidentified American consumers more generally" will be harmed by the supposed constitutional violations the president commits when imposing tariffs (Gary Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on March 17 affirmed the dismissal of steel importer JSW Steel (USA)'s suit against three U.S. steel makers, which alleged that the companies illegally conspired to "boycott JSW by refusing to supply it with specific, domestically produced steel slab" (JSW Steel (USA) Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 5th Cir. # 22-20149).
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.