USTR Proposes Section 301 Tariffs on Brazil
On June 1, 2026, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) proposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) to impose tariffs on imports of goods from Brazil due to Brazil’s practices involving digital trade and electronic payment services, unfair and preferential tariffs, anti-corruption enforcement
On June 1, 2026, President Trump issued a proclamation reducing tariff rates on certain agricultural equipment, mobile industrial equipment and machinery, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) equipment under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (“Section 232”). In the same proclamation, President Trump also added aluminum lithographic plates and steel racks
In the latest developments regarding tariffs paid under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has formally appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) April 17, 2026, universal injunction ordering refunds to all importers to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). The DOJ has
On June 2, 2026, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) proposed tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) on imports from 60 countries for their failure to enforce prohibitions related to forced labor. The USTR found that these failures are unreasonable and burden U.S. commerce. The proposed tariffs range from 10% to 12.5%, though they do contain several carveouts.
On June 1, 2026, President Trump issued a proclamation reducing tariff rates on certain agricultural equipment, mobile industrial equipment and machinery, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) equipment under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (“Section 232”). In the same proclamation, President Trump also added aluminum lithographic plates and steel racks
On May 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) indicated that it will appeal the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) universal injunction ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to reliquidate final entries (entries more than 90 days past liquidation) and refund duties paid under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”) by
On May 27, 2026, following a closed-door conference in Euro-Notions Florida v. United States (CIT # 25-00595) (“Euro-Notions”), Judge Eaton issued two (2) orders which will require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to explain the Government’s position on issuing IEEPA refunds for all entries, including those that have liquidated beyond the statutory reliquidation period
On May 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) denied the Government’s request to pause the CIT’s May 7 ruling during the appeals process. For now, Section 122 duties remain unlawful, and U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) cannot collect Section 122 duties from plaintiffs Burlap & Barrel, Basic Fun, and the State of Washington.
Beginning in February 2025, President Trump imposed new tariffs on imported goods through a series of executive orders, relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the claimed authority for imposing tariffs. In time, the new tariffs affected imported goods from nearly all countries. Legal challenges followed.
In V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, the Court of International Trade (CIT) enjoined the enforcement of the tariffs against the plaintiff, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases, and on February 20, 2026, issued its opinion holding that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Two days later, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that it would no longer collect IEEPA tariffs effective February 24, 2026.
On May 7, 2026, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT” or “Court”) invalidated Proclamation No. 11012 in The State of Oregon, et al. v. United States, et al. and Burlap and Barrel, Inc., et al. v. United States, et al., holding that the President exceeded his statutory authority in imposing a temporary