CBP unlawfully excluded two entries of Camel Energy's battery imports for being made with forced labor in China's Xinjiang province, Camel Energy argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said it's not on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, and the batteries in its entries weren't "mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part using forced labor in the" Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230).

A group of 36 senators and 171 representatives filed an amicus brief last week at the Supreme Court, challenging President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. All the signatories were members of the Democratic Party, save for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

A group of 44 leading economists, including former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and four Nobel Prize winners, filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 23 to contest President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs, arguing that the threat underlying the tariffs, sustained trade deficits, don't amount to an "unusual and extraordinary" threat to the U.S. economy, as required by 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).

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 Court of International Trade on Oct. 22 denied the government's motion to stay judicial proceedings in a lawsuit from various seafood importers against the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings of 240 fisheries across 46 nations. While the U.S. said the case should be stayed due to the federal government shutdown, Judge Joseph Laroski said the government's concerns regarding the shutdown, "while substantial, do not outweigh the urgency of judicial review" in this case due to the harm alleged by the importers (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).

The Commerce Department didn't properly support its decision to base antidumping duty respondent Toyo Kohan's date of sale for the company's U.S. sales on its shipment date in the 2022-23 review of the AD order on diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products from Japan, the Court of International Trade held in a decision issued Oct. 23.

Two law professors focusing on sanctions law filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 focusing on the history of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The professors, Fordham School of Law's Andrew Kent and University of Virginia School of Law's Paul Stephan, argued that IEEPA, which confers emergency powers for peacetime, doesn't let the president impose tariffs on imports and "stands in contrast" with the Trading With the Enemy Act, which "authorizes war powers" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

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.

In another amicus brief for V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, a number of legal scholars led by former Virginia governor George Allen opposed President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, citing IEEPA’s history and the major questions and nondelegation doctrines (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 reasonably decided to include two types of products made by antidumping duty respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen in its calculation of BGH's home market sales, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 22. Judge Mark Barnett said the respondent's attempt to remove these two products from the normal value calculation failed, since it necessarily required the addition of an end-use requirement in the scope of the AD order on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany.