Court of International Trade (CIT)

Gavel on cargo containers. Represents legal compliance in international trade. Symbolizes justice, law, and regulations in the import/export industry. Shows trade agreements.

On October 5, 2026, a group of importers led by V.O.S. Selections filed a brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit urging the Court to uphold the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) universal injunction directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to all affected importers. The government, appealing the CIT’s nationwide order, has argued that the CIT is barred from issuing universal injunctions after the Supreme Court’s Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025) decision and contended that the CBP cannot reliquidate finally liquidated entries to issue refunds without importer-specific court orders, relying in part on a narrower view of CBP’s reliquidation authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1501.

Court of International Trade

On August 3, 2026, the state attorney generals of twenty-five states (25) co-led by State of Oregon, Arizona and California filed a complaint in the Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301) to address forced labor. The complaint alleges that Section 301 forced labor tariffs are ultra vires, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.

This complaint by the 25 state attorney generals challenging the legality of the Section 301 forced labor tariffs, joins other lawsuits pending before the CIT that were filed by small business plaintiffs, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology LLC.