NetChoice filed an amended complaint Friday against Mississippi over an age-verification law in a case that was recently remanded to the district court by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida set a May 12 deadline for parties to file amicus briefs in a case brought by importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, against President Donald Trump's tariffs on China imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After the company opened its lawsuit, the U.S. moved to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (see 2504150022). So far in the case, only one amicus brief has been filed, and it came from the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation, which sought to defend the government's bid to transfer the case (see 2504160047) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
The International Trade Commission defended its bid for mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the Court of International Trade's ruling striking down the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses in injury proceedings. The ITC said that it has standing to vie for mandamus relief and that the trade court abused its discretion in undercutting the commission's policy regarding the submission of confidential information (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. District Court for the District Columbia set a hearing for May 27 to hear two children's educational materials producers' motion for a preliminary injunction against all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In a text-only order, Judge Rudolph Contreras set the hearing to take place at 3 p.m. EDT both on the preliminary injunction bid and the U.S. government's motion to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
The U.S. offered its most fulsome defense of President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs to date, submitting a reply to a group of five importers' motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on April 29. The government argued that the text, context, history and purpose of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president impose tariffs and that IEEPA doesn't confer an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the president (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of March 17-23, March 23-30, March 31 - April 6, April 7-13, April 14-20 and April 21-27:
The U.S. offered its most fulsome defense of President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs to date, submitting a reply to a group of five importers' motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on April 29. The government argued that the text, context, history and purpose of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president impose tariffs and that IEEPA doesn't confer an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the president (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
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.
Judge Stephen Vaden last week responded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's invitation to respond to the International Trade Commission's petition for writ of mandamus regarding Vaden's decision finding the ITC's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful. Vaden said the ITC lacks standing to petition for mandamus review, since the information belongs to the parties taking part in the injury proceeding and not the commission, and that the petition fails on the merits (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).