3 New Lawsuits Filed at CIT Against IEEPA Tariffs After SCOTUS Argument
Three new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 6 on the legality of President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as his authority to impose tariffs, on the day after the Supreme Court appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. One suit was filed by three importers, led by Del Monte Fresh Produce and represented by customs lawyer Myron Barlow; another was filed by importer Turn5, represented by Crowell & Moring; and a third was filed by importer Netuno USA by trade lawyer Vinicius Adam (Del Monte Fresh Produce v. United States, CIT # 25-00244) (Netuno USA v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00245) (Turn5 v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00246).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Turn5 said its separate case is necessary, since "even if the IEEPA duties and underlying executive orders are held unlawful by the Supreme Court, importers that have paid IEEPA duties, including Plaintiff, are not guaranteed a refund for those unlawfully collected tariffs in the absence of their own judgment and judicial relief." The company added that its lawsuit is needed now, since its entries will begin to become liquidated and final by Jan. 31, 2026.
On Nov. 5, the Supreme Court held oral argument in the lead cases on the legality of the IEEPA tariffs, with many of the justices appearing skeptical of the president's ability to use the statute to impose tariffs (see 2511050001).
In its complaint, Del Monte argued that the IEEPA doesn't let the president amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to impose duties, or, alternatively, the statute doesn't let the president impose duties "of the amount and breadth" of the reciprocal duties or duties on Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. The brief added that actions under the IEEPA also require an "unusual or extraordinary threat, which is absent," and IEEPA actions may only be used to "deal with an unusual or extraordinary threat, and the contested duties do not deal with the threats alleged in the Executive Orders that impose the contested duties."
Del Monte also argued that the National Emergencies Act, Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 and 3 U.S.C. Section 301, which Trump also asserted as the basis for the tariffs, don't allow the contested duties. Section 604 "merely allows the President to update the HTSUS but not to impose significant new duties," and Section 301 of title 3 "merely allows the President to delegate powers within the Executive Branch," the complaint said.