Search the archive.

What happened: According to a Sheppard Mullin legal alert (published October 21, 2026), the US Supreme Court on February 20, 2026 held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating the IEEPA tariff program. The alert further reports that the replacement tariffs enacted after the decision have now expired, so the measures that took their place are no longer in force either.

Why counsel should care: IEEPA was the executive branch's principal vehicle for imposing duties, and companies in retail, consumer goods, industrials, autos, and energy have priced, contracted, and filed protests around a tariff regime that no longer has a legal basis. With the IEEPA tariffs invalidated and the replacement measures lapsed, the duty landscape for importers is unsettled: which statutory authorities, if any, now support duties; whether liquidation and protest deadlines keep running; whether entries should be modified or drawback pursued; and how contracts referencing tariff costs are affected.

…

Per a Wilmer Cutler alert, the final phase of the Section 232 pharmaceutical tariffs established by Presidential Proclamation 11020 became effective on September 29, 2026, subjecting many imported patented pharmaceuticals and associated ingredients to duties. The alert's focus is practical: firms and their counsel still have room to consider duty-mitigation strategies rather than treating the tariffs as a fixed, unavoidable cost.

Why sophisticated counsel should care: Section 232 duties on finished pharmaceuticals and on associated ingredients reshape landed-cost calculations, supply-contract terms and inventory planning for drug and biotech clients, and they interact with existing foreign-trade-zone, bonded-warehouse and tariff-exclusion options. Because the tariff architecture is proclamation-driven, scope, product coverage and phase-in mechanics can change through successive proclamations and implementing actions, so today's supply chain can differ materially from an earlier model.

…

The U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security released guidance on Oct 14 2026 that revises how to calculate the “U.S. content” of mobile industrial equipment and machinery subject to Section 232 metal tariffs and falling within the USMCA qualifying list. The new methodology includes specific break‑downs of component percentages, recent shipment data, and updated weight‑based formulas. Firms engaged in importing or exporting mobile equipment will need to reassess their tariff calculations, as the guidance may lower the audit threshold for certain items and alter duty amounts. Compliance teams should review the new weightings and update internal procurement reports accordingly. The guidance has yet to be tested in real‑world customs cases, so stakeholders should monitor enforcement actions for further clarification as regulators adapt and anticipate.

The recent decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) expands the scope of class action relief that can be pursued in disputes over IEEPA‑enforced duties. By certifying a class composed solely of non‑litigant importers, the court reaffirmed that importers who were not parties to the original suit may still seek duty‑refund relief if their interests are aligned with the solicited class. This ruling carries significant implications for trade attorneys representing importers, creators of retrospective audit mechanisms, and parties assessing the viability of class actions in future IEEPA‑related tariff disputes. Counsel should reassess the eligibility of their non‑litigant import clients for similar class‑action relief, especially in cases where IEEPA duties were imposed without a clear legislative mandate. The decision may influence how parties structure future litigation strategies, negotiate settlements, or defend against class actions as the doctrine regarding non‑litigants in trade disputes continues to evolve.

On Sept. 30, 2026 the Diario Oficial de la Federación published the Comisión Nacional de Energía’s (CNE) revised methodology for determining energy‑market charges. The update tightens the definition of the exception period and adds several new calculations that could raise or lower tariffs for electricity suppliers, bilateral traders, and load‑management vendors operating in Mexico. Counsel should review the new formulae against current billing contracts, assess whether close‑dated agreements will be affected, and adjust any automated invoicing systems accordingly. Firms with cross‑border or multinational energy portfolios should flag the changes to client risk teams and consider engaging with CNE to confirm the application of the clarified methodology under their specific market segments. The immediate operational impact is a potential shift in cost structures; a subsequent monitoring of CNE’s guidance forum will be prudent to capture any further clarifications or supplementary schedules.

On October 8, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade granted plaintiff Freestyle World, Inc.'s motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel in a suit seeking refunds of duties paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The decision converts what had been an individual importer's refund demand into a vehicle capable of aggregating claims across similarly situated importers, which matters well beyond the named party.

…

What happened: On October 5, 2026, a group of importers led by V.O.S. Selections filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asking it to uphold the Court of International Trade's universal injunction addressing IEEPA-based duties, framing the appeal as a test of the CIT's authority to grant relief beyond the named plaintiffs. The posture is an appeal, not a ruling; the excerpt does not set out the injunction's operative terms, the underlying program, or the panel and schedule.

Why counsel should care: the scope of judicial relief in tariff cases is not a party-specific procedural question. If a universal injunction survives, entry-summary filers face a different compliance and cash-flow model: which entries were liquidated, which remain suspended, what instructions Customs has issued, and whether refunds follow automatically or require entry-specific claims. Downstream issues — first-sale, drawback, transfer pricing, contract price and incoterm allocations, and inventory valuation — all key off the same collection posture.

…