Importer Detroit Axle opposed the government's motions for an extension of time to respond to the company's motions for leave to amend its complaint and for partial summary judgment in its case against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis threshold for goods from China. Detroit Axle said the U.S. "has failed to establish 'good cause'" for being given another 35 days to respond to the motions to amend and for partial summary judgment if the Court of International Trade dissolves the stay of the case (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the government's attempt to stay the case from members of Blackfeet Nation against the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act due to the federal government shutdown as "unnecessary" in light of the court's order issued in response to the shutdown (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The parties challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked the Supreme Court to grant divided argument among the three groups of plaintiffs challenging the tariffs and to allow for 45 minutes of argument for each side. The three groups are five importers that filed suit at the Court of International Trade, 12 U.S. states that filed suit at CIT, and two importers that filed their case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (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.
The likelihood of the Supreme Court striking down President Donald Trump's tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is a "coin flip," various attorneys said during a Sept. 30 webinar hosted by The Budget Lab, a policy research center at Yale University. Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, an amicus in the IEEPA tariffs cases, noted a "very clear split" among trade lawyers and constitutional lawyers as to where the Supreme Court will come out on this issue.
Counsel for the Blackfeet Nation members challenging the imposition of tariffs on Native Americans asked the Supreme Court for leave to participate in the Nov. 5 oral argument session on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The members' attorney, Monica Tranel, asked for 15 minutes to argue her case during the hearing, saying her claim that the president can't impose tariffs on Native Americans isn't "addressed by the other parties" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The U.S. on Sept. 24 opposed a company’s motion to resume its case challenging the end of de minimis, arguing that the case still raises the same legal questions as V.O.S. Selections vs. U.S. despite a new executive order officially rescinding de minimis globally (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).
The Supreme Court on Sept. 24 granted the government's request for permission to use up to 3,000 additional words in its reply brief in the cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Chief Justice John Roberts approved the application for 9,000 total words (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The case against the lists 3 and 4A tariffs is unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court or the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the recent decision from the Federal Circuit upholding the tariffs likely gives the Trump administration greater confidence in using tariff authorities other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Sept. 24 ordered supplemental briefing in a case concerning the legality of tariffs imposed on Native Americans on the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to review an order transferring cases to another district court (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).