On June 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a stay keeping both tranches of President Donald Trump’s tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.) in effect until final adjudication by the appellate court. The per curiam (
CIT Enjoins IEEPA Tariffs but CAFC Issues Temporary Stay – Analysis & Recommendations
- On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) permanently enjoined tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), finding that he exceeded statutory and constitutional authority by imposing broad tariffs on imports from China, Canada, Mexico, and other countries.
- The CIT held that IEEPA does
After CIT Blocks President Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs, CAFC Stays Order Pending Review of the CIT’s Judgment and Injunction
On May 29, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stayed the decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) from the previous day, which had vacated both tranches of President Donald Trump’s tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.). President
Chinese Silicon Producer Challenges Forced Labor Finding at U.S. Court of International Trade
On February 20, 2024, Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co., Ltd. (“Jiaxing Hoshine”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Hoshine Silicon Industry Co., Ltd., filed a complaint at the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) challenging the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) June 2021 decision to issue a withhold release order (WRO) against Hoshine
Federal Circuit Rules that CBP Violated Importer’s Due Process Rights in EAPA Case
On July 27, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision in a case involving the alleged evasion of antidumping duties assessed on pencils of Chinese origin by Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. (Royal Brush) under the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 (EAPA). The EAPA is a statutory scheme
Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal in China Section 301 Tariff Refund Litigation
On May 12, 2023, the plaintiff group in the China Section 301 tariff refund litigation, in response to the recently issued decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) upholding those Section 301 tariffs, formally filed its Notice of Appeal. The appeal will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Plaintiffs Seek Full Federal Circuit Rehearing of Decision Allowing Section 232 Tariffs on Steel Derivatives
On April 24, 2023, plaintiffs in an ongoing challenge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc of their argument that former President Donald Trump improperly imposed additional Section 232 national security tariffs on derivatives of certain imported steel articles. In their petition for consideration by
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition Challenging Section 232 Steel Tariffs
On March 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition by USP Holdings, Inc. and related parties challenging the Trump administration’s Section 232 tariffs on steel imports. The steel importer petitioners had asked the Court to reverse aspects of a June 2022 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (and
CIT Issues Decision Upholding USTR’s China Section 301 List 3 and List 4A Tariffs
On March 17, 2023, in the China Section 301 tariff relief litigation, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) upheld in a major opinion the legality of the implementation of List 3 and List 4A tariffs by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on imports of Chinese products into the United States. In
CIT Panel Hears Oral Arguments Concerning USTR’s Remand Explanation on China Section 301 List 3 and List 4A Tariffs
On February 7, 2023, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) heard oral arguments on the USTR’s remand explanation and the plaintiff group’s reply comments. The hearing addressed the CIT’s earlier finding that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) failed to respond adequately to comments it received during the rulemaking process when