Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.
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 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Nov. 25 opened a solicitation for applications to join the roster of individuals that may serve on binational dispute panels set up under USMCA.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 issued its mandate in the massive litigation on the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. The importers who challenged the tariffs didn't file an appeal of the matter to the Supreme Court prior to the issuance of the mandate. Last month, the court upheld the tariffs, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C) (see 2509250028). The court said the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose" (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.
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.
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.
In another amicus brief for V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, a number of legal scholars led by former Virginia governor George Allen opposed President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, citing IEEPA’s history and the major questions and nondelegation doctrines (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 Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C). CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, sitting by designation, held that the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose."