8 More IEEPA Tariff Cases Filed at CIT
Eight more cases have been filed at the Court of International Trade contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act following oral argument at the Supreme Court in the lead cases on the issue, during which many of the justices expressed skepticism over the validity of such tariffs.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The new cases were filed by Yokohama Tire, Gadot America, Pulse Wire & Cable, AGS Company Automotive Solutions, Standex International, Ricoh USA, Proterial America and Mazak, and all are represented by Crowell & Moring.
The high court held argument in the lead IEEPA tariff cases last week, with conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch pressing the government on its textual and constitutional claims regarding whether IEEPA can be used for tariffs (see 2511050001). In the wake of the argument, various importers have taken to the trade court to ensure their access to refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate the reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs issued under IEEPA (see 2511100018).
(Yokohama Tire v. U.S., CIT # 25-00254) (Gadot America v. U.S., CIT # 25-00257) (Pulse Wire & Cable v. U.S., CIT # 25-00256) (AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S., CIT # 25-00255) (Standex International v. U.S., CIT # 25-00253) (Ricoh USA v. U.S., CIT # 25-00252) (Proterial America v. U.S., CIT # 25-00251) (Mazak v. U.S., CIT # 25-00249)