Forgot password?
Sign up today and your first download is free.
REGISTER
Barloon succeeded Stephen Vaughn as general counsel last May.
The Trump administration’s decision to expand a safeguard tariff on imports of solar products, as well as its reversal of an exclusion for bifacial solar panels, may be illegal, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, which says it will consider all options to “reverse” the moves.
In a last-ditch effort to reverse the Trump administration’s tariffs on goods from China, thousands of importers have filed lawsuits at the Court of International Trade hoping for refunds, though some lawyers familiar with the litigation are skeptical it will succeed.
President Trump’s Section 232 exclusion process for steel and aluminum products is constitutionally sound and consistent with language in the proclamations the president issued to institute the tariffs, the Justice Department recently told the U.S. Court of International Trade in asking for a challenge to the process to be dismissed.
President Trump’s 2018 decision to expand national security-based tariffs on Turkish steel imports was “arbitrary and irrational,” the Court of International Trade ruled on Tuesday, marking the first time the administration’s Section 232 tariffs have been restricted by a federal court.
The U.S. Court of International Trade’s shift to virtual proceedings amid the pandemic has not impacted its ability to successfully move forward with litigation, Judge Gary Katzmann told Inside U.S. Trade this week, though attorneys involved in CIT cases say some important aspects have been lost in the transition.
Thyssenkrupp Materials NA says Commerce grants product exclusions in an unconstitutional and arbitrarily capricious manner.
The Commerce Department is granting exclusions to steel and aluminum tariffs in an unconstitutional and arbitrarily capricious manner that has put a Michigan-based metal importer at a competitive disadvantage, the company argues in a new Section 232 challenge filed with the U.S. Court of International Trade.
A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this week rejected a challenge of the national security-based statute President Trump has utilized to impose restrictions on steel imports.
The Court of International Trade last week denied a Trump administration motion to dismiss a challenge lodged by a U.S. importer of steel products over the president’s decision last August to ratchet up Section 232 tariffs on steel from Turkey.
Senators from three Rust Belt states are urging the Trump administration to push fellow members of the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity to extend its mandate, which is set to expire in December unless renewed by consensus.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is poised to move on a case involving a Section 232 challenge initiated by the American Institute for International Steel after receiving responses from the group and the Trump administration.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to initiate a fact-finding investigation into sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to U.S. agriculture exports.
The American Institute for International Steel last week brought its Section 232 case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court in June declined to hear its argument challenging the constitutionality of the statute used to employ national security-based steel tariffs.
The Supreme Court this week declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the Section 232 statute, sending the challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The Supreme Court should heed precedent and not consider an international steel group’s constitutional challenge of the national security-based statute President Trump has used to employ tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the Justice Department argued this week.
The National Foreign Trade Council has thrown its support behind the international steel group seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the Section 232 statute at the Supreme Court.
Attorneys representing the Trump administration last week argued that President Trump's decision to double a tariff on Turkish steel imports was legal, saying in a push to dismiss a challenge to his authority that he did not have to obtain a new report from the Commerce Department beforehand.
Attorneys representing the Trump administration last week argued that President Trump's decision to double a tariff on Turkish steel imports was legal, saying in a push to dismiss a challenge to his authority that he did not have to obtain a new report from the Commerce Department beforehand.
The Court of International Trade on Monday ruled that President Trump's imposition of steel tariffs based on national security was constitutional, though one of the three judges filed a separate opinion outlining “grave” concerns.