Search the archive.

The U.S. Supreme Court held on February 20, 2026, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, a decision that invalidates all such duties enacted since February 2025. The ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump affects a wide range of tariffs, including those levied against China, Mexico, and Canada. While this creates a significant opportunity for importers to seek refunds on past duties, the decision did not specify a refund mechanism, leaving the issue to be litigated at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Sophisticated counsel and their clients care because the financial stakes are high, but the landscape remains unsettled. Within hours of the ruling, the administration signaled it would use other statutes, namely Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to maintain its tariff policies. This rapid pivot means importers must now prepare for a new legal basis for tariffs while simultaneously pursuing refunds under the old regime. The immediate action is a two-track strategy: compiling records to file refund cl

…

In July 2026, DOJ and DHS released a joint Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement via their new Trade Fraud Task Force, which has already secured over $1 billion in civil and criminal recoveries since its 2025 launch. The guide explicitly frames customs misstatements, tariff evasion, misclassification, and false origin claims as potential False Claims Act (FCA) violations, which carry treble damages, statutory penalties, and qui tam whistleblower risk in addition to traditional customs penalties. It also extends enforcement liability across the supply chain to brokers, distributors, and retailers that benefit from improperly imported goods. Importers should test existing diligence and documentation practices against the FCA’s broad 'knowing' standard, retain all import-related records for the required 5-year period, and treat customs filings as evidentiary records rather than administrative formalities.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's new Forced Labor Enforcement Operational Guidance for Importers formalizes how the agency will apply the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, withhold release orders, and CAATSA to inbound shipments. Importers must now demonstrate granular traceability—mapping each material, supplier, and shipment node—particularly for goods appearing on the Bureau of International Labor Affairs' List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor. The guidance signals broader use of entity-based and commodity-based enforcement, not just port-level detention. In-house counsel at retailers and consumer brands should audit supplier disclosures, refresh due-diligence questionnaires, and prepare rebuttal packages before shipments are detained. Proactive mapping of high-risk inputs (cotton, polysilicon, tomatoes, seafood) is now a baseline compliance expectation rather than a best practice.

The European Commission's June 26, 2026 guidelines interpret the EU Forced Labor Regulation (EU 2024/3015), which takes effect December 14, 2027. Although formally nonbinding, the guidelines establish a detailed six-step due diligence framework that authorities will treat as the practical roadmap for compliance. The regulation imposes an unconditional, absolute obligation of result on all economic operators, regardless of size, sector, or origin, with no turnover thresholds. Even a single component produced with forced labor anywhere in the supply chain can trigger enforcement. Competent authorities in each Member State will conduct risk-based investigations, request extensive documentation (supply chain maps, purchase orders, invoices, facility data), and may issue ban-violation decisions published on a public Forced Labor Single Portal. Penalties follow a five-step methodology for noncompliance with withdrawal orders. Companies should immediately map supply chains, integrate forced labor risk assessments, prepare documentation, and coordinate FLR compliance with the Corporate Susta

…

On July 15, the USTR finalized a 25% Section 301 tariff on most Brazilian-origin imports, effective July 22, addressing actionable concerns including digital trade barriers, unfair ethanol market access, illegal deforestation, and inadequate intellectual property protection. The rule includes HTSUS-specific product exclusions for categories such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, certain agricultural goods, and select industrial inputs, but eligibility requires careful review of Federal Register annexes to avoid incorrect claims. Importers face heightened CBP scrutiny for classification, country-of-origin, and transshipment compliance, plus increased duty costs, potential customs bond insufficiency, and supply chain disruption risks for goods with limited alternative sourcing. In-house counsel should prioritize product-level tariff exposure assessments, review of supply and intercompany contracts for duty allocation terms, and updates to customs compliance protocols.

The DOJ and DHS Trade Fraud Task Force has reported more than $1 billion in recoveries, penalties, forfeitures, and charged losses in under a year, and on July 14, 2026, DOJ announced a dedicated Global Trade & Commerce Enforcement Section within its National Fraud Enforcement Division. A companion Trade Enforcement Resource Guide identifies priority risk areas: misclassification, valuation omissions (assists, royalties, side payments), false origin and transshipment schemes, Section 301 and AD/CVD evasion, forced-labor sourcing, unsafe imports, and downstream participation by brokers, distributors, and resellers. The message is that customs noncompliance producing significant revenue loss will be treated as fraud, not as an administrative penalty matter. Importers should audit classification support, valuation methodologies, origin documentation, and supplier due diligence now, and consider prior disclosures where weaknesses are identified, before the new section develops a sustained case pipeline.

The U.S. has finalized three 50% tariffs on specific categories of Canadian goods under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, set to take effect August 19. Contrary to common industry assumptions, goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will not qualify for exemptions from these new duties. Importers of affected Canadian products must immediately review their supply chains to identify covered items, assess the full financial impact of the new tariffs, evaluate alternative sourcing options, and confirm proper product classification to avoid unexpected duty liabilities when the tariffs go into effect.

The interagency Trade Fraud Task Force has published a formal enforcement resource guide outlining its investigation priorities, protocols, and compliance expectations for entities subject to U.S. customs and trade laws. The guide consolidates existing enforcement authorities and signals the Task Force will use these outlined benchmarks as a standard when auditing trade compliance programs, assessing voluntary disclosures, and pursuing enforcement actions for common violations including misclassification, incorrect valuation, and origin fraud. In-house counsel should conduct a gap analysis of their organization’s current trade compliance practices against the guide’s requirements, update internal policies and training to align with the new expectations, and ensure their teams are prepared to respond to Task Force inquiries consistent with the outlined framework.

USTR has imposed a 25% Section 301 tariff on Brazilian-origin goods effective July 22, 2026, signaling a sharp escalation in U.S.-Brazil trade policy. The action targets a broad range of products, though specific exemptions are expected for categories such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and certain agricultural commodities. Importers should immediately audit their bills of materials and supplier documentation to confirm country-of-origin accuracy, reclassify affected HTS codes, and evaluate whether any product lines qualify for exclusion or tariff-engineering relief. Companies with significant Brazilian sourcing—particularly in steel, agriculture, and manufactured goods—should model margin impact, consider nearshoring alternatives, and prepare for potential Section 301 exclusion requests. Customs brokers should be engaged now to ensure entry filings reflect the new duties and to avoid post-summary correction penalties. The tariff also raises retaliatory-risk considerations for U.S. exporters to Brazil.

The DOJ's Trade Fraud Task Force, launched in August 2025, has generated over $1 billion in civil and criminal recoveries, penalties, forfeitures, and publicly charged losses within its first year. Alongside this milestone, DOJ announced two new criminal cases and created the Global Trade & Commerce Enforcement Section (GTCES) within its National Fraud Enforcement Division, institutionalizing trade-fraud prosecution as a permanent priority rather than a temporary initiative. The enforcement net now spans antidumping/countervailing duty fraud, forced labor, revenue evasion, consumer safety, and national security concerns, coordinated across 35 U.S. Attorneys' Offices, CBP, HSI, FDA, EPA, CPSC, IRS, and USTR. A first-of-its-kind resource guide for the private sector was also released. Companies engaged in cross-border trade should immediately audit customs filings, supply-chain disclosures, and PGA compliance, and evaluate voluntary self-disclosure options given the expanded and durable enforcement posture.

On June 12, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection released a guide clarifying how it enforces U.S. import restrictions on goods produced with forced labor. The guidance consolidates three principal authorities: Section 307 of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. § 1307), the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), and the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). CBP's framework signals heightened scrutiny of supply chains, particularly those with ties to Xinjiang and other high-risk regions. Importers should expect increased detention rates, expanded use of withhold release orders, and more rigorous documentation demands. Companies should map tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers, audit labor practices, and prepare due-diligence records demonstrating that inputs are fully divorced from forced labor sources to mitigate detention and seizure risk.

Following the Supreme Court's invalidation of certain IEEPA-based tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is processing refunds for importers who paid duties under those authorities. However, CBP will not automatically issue refunds; importers must affirmatively request them through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal. Many businesses with global supply chains that paid substantial IEEPA tariffs stand to recover meaningful cash, but those who overlook the required ACE filing risk losing the refund entirely. In-house counsel and trade compliance teams should immediately audit prior entries paid under IEEPA, confirm whether refund requests have been submitted, and coordinate with customs brokers to ensure filings are completed before applicable deadlines. Acting promptly is critical to preserving the recovery.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has concluded findings in a Section 301 investigation tied to alleged use of forced labor in foreign production, a step that historically precedes tariff action or import restrictions targeting specific sectors or countries. For in-house counsel at companies sourcing from regions implicated in the probe, the findings raise the prospect of new duties, customs enforcement, and due-diligence obligations on suppliers. Recommended next steps include reviewing supplier audit records, mapping high-risk inputs, preparing for possible exclusion processes, and updating customs compliance programs to address forced-labor screening under U.S. law.

State attorneys general have emerged as primary enforcement actors, backed by expanded budgets, staffing, and an influx of experienced federal lawyers. Democratic AGs are litigating against the Trump administration—filing 115+ suits since January 2025—and stepping into consumer finance, pricing, and environmental enforcement as federal agencies like the CFPB face cuts. New York and California have launched investigations into algorithmic and surveillance pricing, while multistate coalitions have challenged tariffs, energy-permitting executive orders, and CFPB defunding. Republican AGs are aligning with federal priorities, issuing opinions deeming DEI programs unlawful and pursuing data privacy, ESG, and antitrust actions independently. Bipartisan coalitions are converging on youth online safety, AI, PBMs, and prediction markets. Companies should expect overlapping state and federal exposure, monitor coalition compositions, and prepare for parallel investigations across jurisdictions.