Wisconsin man Gary Barnes doesn't have constitutional or prudential standing to challenge the president's right to impose tariffs, the U.S. argued in a March 21 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The government claimed that Barnes failed to "allege a particularized and concrete injury to himself," and instead claimed that "unidentified American consumers more generally" will be harmed by the supposed constitutional violations the president commits when imposing tariffs (Gary Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on March 17 affirmed the dismissal of steel importer JSW Steel (USA)'s suit against three U.S. steel makers, which alleged that the companies illegally conspired to "boycott JSW by refusing to supply it with specific, domestically produced steel slab" (JSW Steel (USA) Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 5th Cir. # 22-20149).
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.
A State Department notice declaring that all agency efforts to control international trade now constitute a "foreign affairs function" of the U.S. under the Administrative Procedure Act will ultimately be subject to the discretion of the courts, trade lawyers told us.
Canada opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on March 5 to challenge the new U.S.-imposed 25% tariff on all non-energy goods and 10% tariff on energy goods from Canada, claiming that the measure violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade "as well as the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement." Canada said that the U.S. measures "appear to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations" under GATT and TFA provisions.
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.
President Donald Trump will likely turn to Section 301 to enact his plans for "reciprocal" tariffs, various trade lawyers told Trade Law Daily. Following the president's announcement of his reciprocal tariff plan, which will purportedly tackle "non-reciprocal trading arrangements" with many of the U.S.'s trading partners starting April 2, speculation ensued as to the precise scope of the tariffs and their legal bases.
The Trump administration plans to "aggressively" enforce the False Claims Act, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Granston said during the Federal Bar Association's qui tam conference last week, attorneys at McGuire Woods said. While most FCA enforcement action is taken in the field of healthcare, Granston said that DOJ will center future FCA enforcement on other Trump policy priorities, including customs fraud and "illegal foreign trade practices."
It's unclear if the Court of International Trade has the authority to order reliquidation on imports to "increase duties to the detriment of importers," the Solar Energy Industries Association argued in a post-argument brief at the Court of International Trade. SEIA said the trade court should look "skeptically" on the government's request seeking such liquidation, and "require a compelling case based on the equities for granting such relief" (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT # 20-03941).
Earlier this month, Wisconsin man Gary Barnes filed a lawsuit challenging the chief executive's right to impose tariffs as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026). In an email to Trade Law Daily, Barnes said he's targeting tariffs, since they "force retirees, low-income citizens and those on some kind of living assistance to help subsidize tax breaks for others" and also victimize the "less fortunate in our society" (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).