The 12 U.S. states challenging President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20, arguing that the text of IEEPA doesn't allow for any tariffs to be imposed and that Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs to combat the flow of fentanyl don't meet the statute's other requirements (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

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.

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 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).

Crutchfield, a consumer electronics seller, filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 17 challenging the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In the brief, the company highlighted the harms imposed on "American retailers" by the tariffs and argued that the "plain language" of IEEPA and the Constitution don't grant the president "unprecedented, unilateral, and unreviewable" tariff authority (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

Importer Veregy Central argued that CBP improperly assessed hefty antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cell imports from Thailand and Vietnam. In a complaint filed with the Court of International Trade on Oct. 17, Veregy said its goods were properly excluded from these duties due to President Joe Biden's duty pause on solar cells and modules from Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia, since its imports were within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells and were consumed in the U.S. within 24 months of Biden's proclamation announcing the duty pause (Veregy Central v. United States, CIT # 25-00229).

Three different solar cell and module exporters recently filed their opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a pair of cases on the Commerce Department's findings that the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells and modules are being circumvented through Thailand and Cambodia (Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1940) (BYD (H.K.) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1937).

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.

The International Trade Commission doesn't have to identify whether a surge of imports subject to antidumping duties has an adverse impact on the time period after which the final AD order is issued to make a critical circumstances finding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Oct. 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham said the relevant statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i) "does not demand a determination focused on the time after the antidumping duty order issues."

The Supreme Court on Oct. 14 denied four members of the Blackfeet Nation's attempt to intervene in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).