The Supreme Court on Oct. 23 expanded the time for oral argument in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, giving each side 40 minutes to make their cases. However, the court said the parties challenging the tariffs, which are two groups of importers and one group of 12 U.S. states, shall split their time evenly between the private parties and the U.S. states (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Twenty-seven amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court on Oct. 24 in opposition to the ability of President Donald Trump to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, bringing to 35 the total number of amicus briefs filed at the high court against the tariffs. The amici are a mix of law professors, current and former government officials, policy advocacy groups, economists and individual companies.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 22 denied the government's motion to stay judicial proceedings in a lawsuit from various seafood importers against the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings of 240 fisheries across 46 nations. While the U.S. said the case should be stayed due to the federal government shutdown, Judge Joseph Laroski said the government's concerns regarding the shutdown, "while substantial, do not outweigh the urgency of judicial review" in this case due to the harm alleged by the importers (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).
Two law professors focusing on sanctions law filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 focusing on the history of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The professors, Fordham School of Law's Andrew Kent and University of Virginia School of Law's Paul Stephan, argued that IEEPA, which confers emergency powers for peacetime, doesn't let the president impose tariffs on imports and "stands in contrast" with the Trading With the Enemy Act, which "authorizes war powers" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 14 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin).
Antidumping duty petitioner Domtar dropped its case at the Court of International Trade on the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on thermal paper from Germany. Domtar filed a notice of dismissal on Oct. 21, which the court granted the same day. Counsel for Domtar didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Domtar v. United States, CIT # 25-00213).
An appeals court should reject NetChoice's petition to rehear a case challenging the constitutionality of a state law that makes it illegal for internet-based services and applications to provide addictive feeds to those younger than 18, California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said Tuesday.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 14 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
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).