After a federal district court in Montana denied rehearing (see 2506020059), four members of the Blackfeet Nation appealed June 9 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as they continue to challenge the transfer of their International Emergency Economic Powers Act case out of the state. They argued again that the Constitution differentiates between commerce with foreign nations and commerce with Native Americans and that the trade court has only been granted jurisdiction over cases involving the former (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th. Cir. # 25-2717).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 11 told the parties in the appeal concerning tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to file motions governing future proceedings in the appeal within 14 days of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all IEEPA tariff action pending appeal. Parties in the D.C. Circuit case agreed to an expedited briefing schedule in the appeal, prompting the court's instruction to set a briefing schedule. The parties' proposed schedules are due 14 days after June 10, which is the date the Federal Circuit stayed the CIT ruling (see 2506100076) (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-1248).
Eteros Says Declaratory Relief Needed to Thwart 'Retaliatory' Action Against Successful CIT Litigant
Importer Eteros Technologies USA last week defended the notion that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear the company's case alleging that CBP illegally retaliated against the company for its success before the trade court. Eteros said CBP's claimed basis for taking the allegedly retaliatory action against Eteros and its executives, that the company is "aiding and abetting narcotics trafficking," is "factually baseless" and "legally impermissible" in light of the trade court's ruling in Eteros' past case before CIT (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
Litigants in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed a proposed briefing schedule before the appellate court that would conclude briefing by July 18 (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
Stephen Vaden, current judge on the Court of International Trade, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as deputy secretary of agriculture. The Senate confirmed Vaden with a 51-44 vote split exactly down party lines. Five senators -- Ted Budd, R-N.C., Jon Ossoff, R-Ga., Thom Tillis R-N.C., Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., -- didn't take part in the vote.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 11 stayed the Court of International Trade's directives in two cases concerning the International Trade Commission's redaction of certain business proprietary information. In addition, the appellate court designated the lawsuits as "companion cases" to be heard by the same merits panel and appointed Alex Moss, executive director at the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, to be amicus counsel to defend the trade court's rulings (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. #s 24-1566, 25-127).
The Court of International Trade on June 11 held that the government's claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer AB Specialty Silicones' launched another case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's classification of its specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds. In a June 4 complaint, AB challenged the classification of one entry of its silicone compounds, arguing that it should only pay 3.7% duties for the product under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2910.90.9051 or 3% under subheading 3910.00.0000 (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00099).
The Court of International Trade on June 11 held that the government's claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time.