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).
The Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian legal advocacy group that recently brought a case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on behalf of 11 importers, has had "preliminary" talks with the other advocacy groups that have brought cases challenging the tariffs on whether to proceed with separate cases. Molly Nixon, attorney at the foundation, told us she's "in touch" with the two other groups who have brought cases against the tariffs, the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the Liberty Justice Center, but that nothing is confirmed about whether the groups will combine cases.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A third case challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been filed at the Court of International Trade by a group of 11 companies, most of which make tabletop games. The companies, led by clothing maker Princess Awesome LLC, argue that the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs, Trump's declared national emergencies fail to meet the "statutory requirement of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat'" and IEEPA unconstitutionally transfers legislative power to the president (Princess Awesome v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00078).
The Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian legal advocacy group that recently brought a case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on behalf of 11 importers, has had "preliminary" talks with the other advocacy groups that have brought cases challenging the tariffs on whether to proceed with separate cases. Molly Nixon, attorney at the foundation, told us she's "in touch" with the two other groups who have brought cases against the tariffs, the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the Liberty Justice Center, but that nothing is confirmed about whether the groups will combine cases.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on April 25 transferred a case filed by four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the tariffs on Canada issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen held that two cases establishing the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, confirm CIT's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving IEEPA, given that IEEPA has the "same operative language as that contained in the TWEA" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D.Mont. # 4:25-00026).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Importer Under the Weather on April 23 dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade after the trade court refused to let the company add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods" to its complaint (see 2504150053) (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).