International trade attorney Elyssa Kutner has resigned from Sidley Austin, according to a notice Kutner filed at the Court of International Trade. Kutner joined Sidley in 2020 as an associate, moving to counsel in January 2024. At the firm, she covered U.S. customs law and import compliance. Prior to joining Sidley, she worked as an associate at ArentFox and Neville Peterson.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A third case challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been filed at the Court of International Trade by a group of 11 companies, most of which make tabletop games. The companies, led by clothing maker Princess Awesome LLC, argue that the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs, Trump's declared national emergencies fail to meet the "statutory requirement of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat'" and IEEPA unconstitutionally transfers legislative power to the president (Princess Awesome v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00078).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on April 25 transferred a case filed by four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the tariffs on Canada issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen held that two cases establishing the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, confirm CIT's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving IEEPA, given that IEEPA has the "same operative language as that contained in the TWEA" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D.Mont. # 4:25-00026).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Importer Under the Weather on April 23 dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade after the trade court refused to let the company add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods" to its complaint (see 2504150053) (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).
The U.S. said the Court of International Trade's recent decision denying five companies' application for a temporary restraining order against the "reciprocal" tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act affirms the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases related to IEEPA tariffs. Filing a notice of supplemental authority in a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana challenging various IEEPA tariffs, the government said any decision from the Montana court to retain jurisdiction "would necessarily contradict" the trade court's decision (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
The Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation appeared as an amicus in a second case filed in a U.S. district court challenging the imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to defend the government's bid to transfer the cases to the Court of International Trade. In both cases, the foundation said it's providing the court with "another basis for transfer" to CIT (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
The Court of International Trade on April 24 assigned a case from 12 U.S. states challenging all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani -- the same three judges assigned to another suit challenging IEEPA trade action (The State of Oregon, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
A group of constitutional scholars, lawyers, retired federal judges and former U.S. senators and politicians filed an amicus brief at the Court of International Trade in the case on President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. The amici, led by former Virginia senator and governor George Allen, argued that IEEPA "cannot bear [the] weight" of Trump's trade action, adding that the statute only permits "limited and targeted actions under narrow conditions" and not "sweeping economic realignment" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).