Last week, we noted that the Ninth Circuit’s visiting judges together perform the work of roughly 6 additional Ninth Circuit judges. But who, exactly, secures an invite to help serve as these supplemental members of the Ninth...more
The U.S. Court of International Trade's (CIT) docket is brimming these days, all thanks to importers who have initiated more than 3,500 actions to date challenging the Trump Administration's use of Section 301 of the Trade...more
Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To...more
In addition to standing behind the plain language of the definition of a “US-made end product,” the court in Acetris Health, LLC v. United States provided new guidance regarding limits on Customs and Border Protection...more
On Monday, in the much-anticipated decision in Acetris Health, LLC v. U.S. 18-2399, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) ruled that U.S. manufacture of a drug is sufficient to confer U.S....more
In just one opinion, the landscape surrounding national security tariffs has undergone a dramatic shift. In Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, an otherwise narrow dispute regarding steel imports from Turkey subject to...more
Several federal agencies—including most notably the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Trade Representative—administer an ever-expanding body...more
Antidumping and countervailing duty orders address unfairly priced and subsidized imports that enter the United States. Each order contains a “scope” that identifies in part the “class or kind” or merchandise covered by...more
At the end of 2018, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion in One World Techs., Inc. v. United States. In that decision, Judge Choe-Groves concluded that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)...more
On March 25, 2019, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued its opinion in Am. Inst. For Int’l Steel, Inc. v. United States, a decision addressing whether Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (“TEA”)...more
In late March, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a highly anticipated opinion addressing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to take measures against imports...more
Let’s say you import widgets that potentially fall within the scope of an antidumping or countervailing duty order. You wonder in good faith whether the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) may subject the imported widgets...more
The U.S. Constitution confers authority on Congress to “ordain and establish” courts “inferior” to the Supreme Court. When Congress exercises its power under the Constitution and creates a lower court, it identifies a class...more
Few international trade disputes make their way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). In the vast majority of these appeals, SCOTUS simply denies the petition for certiorari without comment. Indeed, SCOTUS last...more
From time to time, international trade and patent law matters overlap. We expect to see these interactions in disputes filed pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). In other instances, the U.S....more