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).
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 Court of International Trade on July 18 granted the government's motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng for negligently failing to pay ordinary, Section 301 and antidumping duties on its innerspring entries. Judge Timothy Stanceu granted the motion, after previously rejecting it for insufficiently pleaded facts, ordering Rayson and Cheng to pay a nearly $3.4 million penalty and all unpaid duties, taxes and cash deposits on the unliquidated entries in the case (U.S. v. Rayson Global, Inc. and Doris Cheng, CIT # 23-00201).
An FCC draft order on the July 24 open meeting agenda that would give the bureaus authority to delete FCC rules without seeking notice and comment is drawing warnings from public interest groups, but communications industry officials told us they aren’t concerned. The agency has also recently skipped notice and comment while shifting the language of existing rules.
The U.S. filed a complaint on July 15 in a case against importer Global Office Furniture and its owner Malcom Smith for allegedly violating the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying duties on imported office chairs, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina announced. The case was originally filed in March 2020 by Sharon Joyce, former office manager for Global Office Furniture (United States v. Global Office Furniture, D.S.C. # 2:20-01223).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Appellants and domestic mattress petitioners objected July 8 to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit order to remove mattress importer Zinus’ own appeal from the combined appeal (see 2506250052) (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
The Court of International Trade on July 18 granted the government's motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng for negligently failing to pay ordinary, Section 301 and antidumping duties on its innerspring entries. Judge Timothy Stanceu granted the motion, after previously rejecting it for insufficiently pleaded facts, ordering Rayson and Cheng to pay a nearly $3.4 million penalty and all unpaid duties, taxes and cash deposits on the unliquidated entries in the case (U.S. v. Rayson Global, Inc. and Doris Cheng, CIT # 23-00201).