The private parties challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply briefs at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20. The briefs centered their arguments on the text of IEEPA itself, arguing that the law, which only lets the president "regulate ... importation," categorically doesn't confer tariff power to the president. The companies also argued that the major questions and non-delegation doctrines compel the high court to strip President Donald Trump of the unfettered tariff power he claims under the statute (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

The International Trade Commission inadequately supported its decision not to exclude Amsted Rail from the injury investigation on freight rail couplers (FRCs) from China and Mexico, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public on Oct. 20. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the ITC didn't articulate a "rational connection" between Amsted's domestic production performance and the decision not to exclude Amsted, nor did it properly support its conclusion that Amsted's exclusion would "skew the data."

The Commerce Department properly excluded importer Elysium Tiles' composite tile from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 20. After instructing Commerce to consider the (k)(2) scope factors on remand, Judge Jane Restani sustained the agency's (k)(2) analysis as reasonable.