Exporter Camel Group defended its motion to unredact and re-designate part of the administrative record in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 18 that the government won't suffer harm if Camel Group's lawyers can share the documents with the company. The exporter claimed that the government's interest in shielding the documents is "tarnished by continued inconsistencies in its designation" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
Conservative advocacy group the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed another lawsuit challenging the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that IEEPA categorically doesn't allow for tariffs and that the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump aren't "necessary" to address the declared emergencies. The alliance filed its suit on July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of outdoor cooking product maker FIREDISC, the Game Manufacturers Association and wood product maker Ryan Wholesale (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
Orange juice importers Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Company on July 22 asked the Court of International Trade to either temporarily, preliminarily or permanently enjoin the federal government from "imposing and enforcing" President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Filing a combined application for a temporary restraining order and motions for a preliminary or permanent injunction, Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage said the tariff isn't a proper exercise of either Section 301 or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Johanna Foods v. Executive Office of the President of the United States of America, CIT # 25-00155).
Exporter Camel Group defended its motion to unredact and re-designate part of the administrative record in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 18 that the government won't suffer harm if Camel Group's lawyers can share the documents with the company. The exporter claimed that the government's interest in shielding the documents is "tarnished by continued inconsistencies in its designation" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
Orange juice importers Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Company on July 22 asked the Court of International Trade to either temporarily, preliminarily or permanently enjoin the federal government from "imposing and enforcing" President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Filing a combined application for a temporary restraining order and motions for a preliminary or permanent injunction, Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage said the tariff isn't a proper exercise of either Section 301 or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Johanna Foods v. Executive Office of the President of the United States of America, CIT # 25-00155).
Conservative advocacy group the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed another lawsuit challenging the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that IEEPA categorically doesn't allow for tariffs and that the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump aren't "necessary" to address the declared emergencies. The alliance filed its suit on July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of outdoor cooking product maker FIREDISC, the Game Manufacturers Association and wood product maker Ryan Wholesale (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
Section 338 hasn't been implicitly repealed, and President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can also be upheld under Section 338, the Trump-aligned legal advocacy group America First Policy Institute argued in a proposed amicus reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments against its position from the 12 U.S. states and five importers challenging the IEEPA tariffs and another amicus brief filed by various legal scholars and former government officials, the institute argued that the states and amicus didn't offer any support for many of their claims (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. filed its reply brief in the lead case on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing, among other things, that the Court of International Trade doesn't have the power to issue a nationwide injunction vacating the tariffs and that IEEPA plainly allows the president to impose tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A group of constitutional scholars, legal historians, a former appellate judge, a former attorney general and three former U.S. senators urged the Supreme Court on July 17 to take up two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The amici argued that President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs clearly violate the constitutional order and, if upheld, would let the president use IEEPA " to reshape U.S. economic policy, and indeed the global economy more generally, without involving Congress" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).