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 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week stayed a proposed class action lawsuit contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the lead cases on the issue (see 2512230074) (Smirk & Dagger Games v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 1:25-03857).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week stayed a proposed class action lawsuit contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the lead cases on the issue (Smirk & Dagger Games v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 1:25-03857).
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.
There are probably five justices who will find that the reciprocal tariffs were not permissible under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that the president used to impose them, according to Georgetown University Law Center Professor Marty Lederman. Lederman, a senior fellow in the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown, was one of two guests on the weekly Washington International Trade Association podcast that aired Nov. 7.
The first class-action lawsuit against the president’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs was filed Nov. 4 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Smirk & Dagger Games v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 1:25-03857).
Two Trump appointees, along with the three liberal justices, had sharp questions for the Trump administration's advocate as the Supreme Court held a nearly three-hour hearing on the constitutionality of tariffs imposed around the world under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Importers who have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should look to affirmatively safeguard their right to receive refunds should the Supreme Court vacate in some form President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the statute, various law firms said. The attorneys issued the alerts in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to hear two cases on the legality of IEEPA tariffs on an expedited basis (see 2509090058).
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA limiting the ability for lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions doesn't affect the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction against President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 12 U.S. states told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 8. The states, led by Oregon, argued in a reply brief that the trade court's injunction, which applied to parties not part of the lawsuit against the tariffs, is necessary to afford the states complete relief (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. has asked the Court of International Trade to stay the remaining cases on its docket challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending its appeal of the trade court's recent decision vacating all tariffs thus far imposed under IEEPA. The government argued that a stay is "warranted," since "an appellate ruling would be binding on plaintiffs’ claims" at CIT and resources will be spared in not having to litigate the same issues (Princess Awesome v. United States, CIT # 25-00078) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. United States, CIT # 25-00096).