The Montana Farmers Union moved to intervene in a case brought by four members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe challenging various trade action taken by President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The agriculture trade group said it qualifies for intervention as a "matter of right," alternatively arguing that the court should permit the group to intervene even if it doesn't have the right to intervene (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
The three judges assigned to the case challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act -- Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif -- may be poised to rein in the administration's use of the act to impose tariffs, various attorneys told us. Based on their prior jurisprudence and professional backgrounds, the attorneys said, it seems likely the trio may pare back Trump's tariff-setting authority, though it's ultimately unclear to what extent.
The U.S. defended its bid to transfer a case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 232 to the Court of International Trade, arguing that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs' convenience in keeping the suit in Montana is "irrelevant" to CIT's jurisdiction. Filing a reply brief on April 16, the government said the plaintiffs, four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe, "ignore or misunderstand" CIT's "specialized nature and the fact that that court may also review the implementation of executive orders in cases within its jurisdiction" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
The U.S. filed motions to transfer the two cases challenging the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed in federal district courts to the Court of International Trade. In both cases, the government said the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction over the claims raised by both lawsuits, since they "arise out of laws providing for tariffs or the administration or enforcement of those laws" (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
Counsel for two members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe that recently filed a lawsuit against the recent tariff action taken by President Donald Trump told us that she believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Monica Tranel, the attorney for Montana state Sen. Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard, also said that she believes she can obtain a preliminary injunction against the spate of tariffs recently imposed on Canada due to the size of the harm to the agriculture and tourism industry in western Montana.
Two members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana against various tariff actions by President Donald Trump, arguing that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is an "unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority." The individuals, Montana state Sen. Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard, also claimed that Trump's tariff orders unconstitutionally deprived them of procedural due process and are "void for vagueness."
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.
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.
Steel importer Seneca Foods Corp. urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 21 to overturn the Commerce Department's rejection of its Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests, claiming its approach to exclusion requests "sought to ensure that the President's aims" in imposing the tariffs "would be fully realized." Seneca said the fact that U.S. Steel Corp., which objected to Seneca's requests, "declined to supply the very same volumes for which Seneca sought exclusions should be dispositive" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).