Only the Supreme Court can provide the "finality and certainty that America's businesses need" in ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs, libertarian advocacy group the Washington Legal Foundation argued in a June 18 amicus brief. Urging the high court to take up two importers' IEEPA suit prior to full review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation argued that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs and that only SCOTUS can "provide certainty and finality on that question" (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
As the Bureau of Industry and Security asks for more funding from Congress to improve its enforcement and technological capabilities, the agency could benefit from more information about controlled exports leaving third countries, said Matt Borman, a former senior BIS official. He also stressed the importance of the U.S. carefully calibrating any new export controls, and said its current semiconductors restrictions have successfully slowed China from producing the most advanced chips.
Most comments appeared to support proposals in a January NPRM on a voluntary, negotiation-based process to transition 10 MHz in the 900 MHz band to broadband. But some commenters continued to raise concerns about the interference risk for the current band incumbent (see 2505190025). Reply comments were due this week in docket 24-99. In 2020, the FCC approved use of 3/3 MHz channels in the band for broadband while retaining 4 MHz for narrowband operations (see 2005130057).
Two importers challenging tariffs imposed under the international Emergency Economic Powers Act, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, petitioned the Supreme Court June 17 to hear their case in a bid to accelerate the resolution of the challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs. The companies, represented by Akin Gump, said the high court should hear the case now in "light of the tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
Two importers challenging tariffs imposed under the international Emergency Economic Powers Act, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, petitioned the Supreme Court June 17 to hear their case in a bid to accelerate the resolution of the challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs. The companies, represented by Akin Gump, said the high court should hear the case now in "light of the tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The two importers challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the District Court for the District of Columbia directly petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case. The importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, represented by Akin Gump, said the question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs "will inevitably fall to this Court to resolve definitively." The companies said they can't wait for the normal appellate process to wrap up, even on an expedited basis, given the "tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims." The importers are only asking the high court to review whether IEEPA provides for tariffs and not any of its other challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariff action, noting that it's the only claim the government says courts have the power to review.
The two importers challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the District Court for the District of Columbia directly petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case. The importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, represented by Akin Gump, said the question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs "will inevitably fall to this Court to resolve definitively." The companies said they can't wait for the normal appellate process to wrap up, even on an expedited basis, given the "tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims." The importers are only asking the high court to review whether IEEPA provides for tariffs and not any of its other challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariff action, noting that it's the only claim the government says courts have the power to review.
Changes in how the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee is organizing its working groups, as well as further discussion about the potential incorporation of "real-time modern processes," are coming at a time when CBP appears to be putting greater emphasis on trade enforcement as part of a broader effort to bolster national security.
After a federal district court in Montana denied rehearing (see 2506020059), four members of the Blackfeet Nation appealed June 9 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as they continue to challenge the transfer of their International Emergency Economic Powers Act case out of the state. They argued again that the Constitution differentiates between commerce with foreign nations and commerce with Native Americans and that the trade court has only been granted jurisdiction over cases involving the former (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th. Cir. # 25-2717).
Former FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington told broadcasters Thursday that Chairman Brendan Carr has chosen not to take steps to ease the ATSC 3.0 transition. Carr could have long ago had the agency issue guidance to speed the approval of ATSC 3.0 channel-sharing applications, even without a Republican majority, Simington said in a speech at the ATSC NextGen Broadcast Conference.