Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.
Following the Supreme Court's oral argument in the lead cases on whether the president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, various trade lawyers speculated that the high court now appears poised to strike down the tariffs.
NEW YORK -- Apparel import compliance professionals more used to thinking about bills of lading and purchase orders than the major questions doctrine had their hopes raised -- and dashed -- at the annual U.S. Fashion Industry Association conference.
The first class-action lawsuit against the president’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs was filed Nov. 4 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Smirk & Dagger Games v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 1:25-03857).
The Trump administration filed its reply brief on Oct. 30 in the Supreme Court cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, addressing a host of arguments relating to the text of the IEEPA, all of the statute's requirements and the history of the measure (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 case against the lists 3 and 4A tariffs is unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court or the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the recent decision from the Federal Circuit upholding the tariffs likely gives the Trump administration greater confidence in using tariff authorities other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C). CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, sitting by designation, held that the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas, who was sitting by designation, said the tariffs were a valid exercise of the government's authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C), which lets the U.S. Trade Representative "modify or terminate any action" taken under Section 301, where such action is "no longer appropriate."
The U.S. filed its opening brief at the Supreme Court on Sept. 19 in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to stop the flow of fentanyl are a valid exercise of IEEPA, adding that the tariffs are a proper expression of presidential policymaking in emergency situations.