The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 28 issued a pair of decisions rejecting challenges from three exporters to the Commerce Department's decision to deny them separate antidumping duty rates in the 2012-13 and 2014-15 reviews of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes said the exporters' claims on whether the agency can "deem decisive an exporter's failure to establish lack of state control of management selection" without more proof of state control over export activities were precluded by the appellate court's recent holding in Pirelli Tyre v. U.S.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian legal advocacy group that recently brought a case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on behalf of 11 importers, has had "preliminary" talks with the other advocacy groups that have brought cases challenging the tariffs on whether to proceed with separate cases. Molly Nixon, attorney at the foundation, told us she's "in touch" with the two other groups who have brought cases against the tariffs, the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the Liberty Justice Center, but that nothing is confirmed about whether the groups will combine cases.

A third case challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been filed at the Court of International Trade by a group of 11 companies, most of which make tabletop games. The companies, led by clothing maker Princess Awesome LLC, argue that the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs, Trump's declared national emergencies fail to meet the "statutory requirement of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat'" and IEEPA unconstitutionally transfers legislative power to the president (Princess Awesome v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00078).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on April 25 transferred a case filed by four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the tariffs on Canada issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen held that two cases establishing the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, confirm CIT's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving IEEPA, given that IEEPA has the "same operative language as that contained in the TWEA" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D.Mont. # 4:25-00026).

The Court of International Trade on April 24 assigned a case from 12 U.S. states challenging all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani -- the same three judges assigned to another suit challenging IEEPA trade action (The State of Oregon, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

A group of constitutional scholars, lawyers, retired federal judges and former U.S. senators and politicians filed an amicus brief at the Court of International Trade in the case on President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. The amici, led by former Virginia senator and governor George Allen, argued that IEEPA "cannot bear [the] weight" of Trump's trade action, adding that the statute only permits "limited and targeted actions under narrow conditions" and not "sweeping economic realignment" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

The 12 states that recently launched a lawsuit against all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act will begin working on a preliminary injunction motion against the tariffs "in the near future," Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield told us. Rayfield was confident in the prospect of being able to show that Oregon and its many public institutions will suffer "irreparable harm" without the injunction and that a judge will be willing to question the validity of Trump's declaration that bilateral trade deficits amount to an "unusual and extraordinary" threat.

The Commerce Department reasonably used adverse facts available against respondent Kumar Industries for failing to respond to the best of its ability in demonstrating that it's not affiliated with two unnamed companies, the Court of International Trade held on April 23. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Commerce's request for information on the alleged affiliations "should not have come as a surprise," adding that it's the respondent's burden to sufficiently populate the record.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 23 again rejected the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its analysis to detect and address "masked" dumping. A day after the court resoundingly struck down the agency's use of the test in a separate case (see Ref:2504220030]), Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said they were bound by the court's day-old ruling.

Twelve U.S. states led by Oregon filed a lawsuit April 23 against all of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The states' complaint argues that Trump exceeded his authority as established in IEEPA, since the "annual U.S. goods trade deficits" are not an "unusual and extraordinary threat." The states also argue that neither the reciprocal tariffs, nor the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico imposed to address drug trafficking, establish a sufficient nexus to the claimed emergencies (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).