A total of seven amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court in defense of President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One of the briefs, filed by the America First Policy Institute, urged the Supreme Court to sustain Trump's IEEPA tariff action under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, while another, penned by University of Virginia law professor Aditya Bamzai, detailed how wartime powers have historically included the power to tax and argued that IEEPA should be read to include these 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.

CBP failed to explain its finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 23. Vacating and remanding the forced labor finding, Judge Timothy Reif said the agency failed to "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action” based on a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard.

Four amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court on Sept. 23 in defense of President Donald Trump's ability to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The briefs focused on various elements of the case, though they all argued that the nondelegation doctrine shouldn't be used to strip the president of his tariff authority here, since the court has long upheld broad delegations of authority to the president in the realms of foreign affairs and national defense (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 22 declined to reconsider its customs case finding importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are classified as "extract of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603. While the government said the court ignored that fish extracts must have similar characteristics to meat extracts and BASF's stipulation that its preparations aren't fatty acids, Judge Joseph Laroski said he explicitly considered both arguments.

The U.S. filed its opening brief at the Supreme Court on Sept. 19 in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to stop the flow of fentanyl are a valid exercise of IEEPA, adding that the tariffs are a proper expression of presidential policymaking in emergency situations.

Solar cell importers and exporters, led by the American Clean Power Association, moved the Court of International Trade on Sept. 18 to stay its ruling vacating the Commerce Department's 2022-2024 duty "pause" on the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Supreme Court set oral argument for the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for Nov. 5, part of an attempt to hear the cases on an expedited basis (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

The standing up by DOJ of the Trade Fraud Task Force indicates the Trump administration is pouring significantly more resources and attention into prosecuting tariff evasion and customs fraud, and will use the various criminal and civil enforcement tools at their disposal, various attorneys said.

Adverse facts available were warranted for a Vietnamese electric wire exporter’s reporting of its inputs’ countries of origin, the U.S. said Sept. 8 in response to an exporter’s motion for judgment opposing a circumvention ruling (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).