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).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held argument on the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana's decision to transfer a case against the legality of International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs and Section 232 tariffs as applied to tribal members to the Court of International Trade. One of the judges, Judge William Fletcher, appeared skeptical of the government's claim that the court can't review the district court's transfer order (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided Sept. 12 to stay proceedings in California's case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it denied the government's stay request in a similar case brought by members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe. Oral argument in the tribal members' lawsuit remains scheduled for Sept. 17 before Judges William Fletcher, Ronald Gould and Ana de Alba (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The U.S. opposed the intervention of members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the Supreme Court, arguing that the members don't identify anything "rare, unusual, or extraordinary that would warrant intervention here" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the legality of tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked to intervene in the lead case on the issue a day after the Supreme Court decided to take up the matter. The Blackfeet Nation members said their claims "overlap" with the claims from the existing parties, though their case also raises questions about "fundamental constitutional principles and a unique body of federal Indian law" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Aug. 25 and Aug. 27 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
President Donald Trump said that the administration will petition the Supreme Court on Sept. 3 to make an "expedited ruling" on the legality of tariffs he imposed on every country through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. Declining to address whether IEEPA categorically provides for tariffs, though spilling much ink on the topic, a majority of the court held that IEEPA doesn't confer unbounded tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. #s 25-1812, -1813).
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.
Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems again said Aug. 15 that the plain language of the executive order establishing Section 232 exclusion requests doesn’t allow the Commerce Department to base denials on national security considerations (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. United States, CIT # 24-00101).