Search the archive.

An analysis of the high-profile Sime Darby palm oil forced labor matter provides key lessons for companies navigating supply chain due diligence. The case, which resulted in a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) finding and import ban under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, serves as a case study for the severe operational and reputational risks of inadequate human rights compliance. For sophisticated counsel and clients with global supply chains, the matter underscores the aggressive enforcement posture of U.S. authorities and the need for proactive, evidence-based diligence systems. The key takeaway is that companies must go beyond contractual assurances and implement robust mechanisms for supply-chain mapping, risk assessment, on-the-ground auditing, and timely remediation. Counsel should advise clients to review compliance programs in light of evolving standards to affirmatively demonstrate the absence of forced labor.

On August 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president possesses the legal authority to eliminate the $800 de minimis tariff exemption under the Trade Act of 1974. The decision stems from a challenge to a prior executive action that sought to revoke the exemption for certain goods. The court’s affirmation of presidential power removes a significant judicial barrier to future tariff policy shifts. Companies with cross-border e-commerce, retail, and supply chain operations should evaluate exposure to potential tariff reinstatement, review import classification strategies, and consider contingency plans for cost pass-through or sourcing adjustments.

The U.S. has imposed new Section 232 tariffs on imported unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and their components, with rates reaching up to 100% and an effective date of September 3. This action directly impacts manufacturers that rely on foreign-made parts, operators that import ready-to-fly systems, and any entity involved in the UAS supply chain. Companies should immediately review their import volumes, evaluate alternative sourcing from domestic or unaffected countries, and model the financial impact of these duties on pricing and margins. Engaging trade counsel to explore potential exclusions, tariff classification strategies, and supply chain restructuring is critical to mitigating exposure and maintaining competitiveness.

The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have released a joint enforcement guide that elevates trade fraud—particularly misclassification, undervaluation, and origin fraud—as a sustained priority. The guide effectively applies False Claims Act standards to import-related conduct, meaning that supply-chain diligence must be documented with the underlying analysis, not just conclusions. Importers and brokers should test their existing compliance frameworks against this guidance, strengthen internal reporting channels, and assess disclosure decisions early to mitigate exposure to government investigations and civil penalties.

The Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. Trump invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA, opening the door for importers to recover duties already paid. Two procedural paths exist: filing suit in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), or seeking administrative reliquidation through CBP. Each carries distinct risks—litigation offers broader remedies but requires timely filing, while administrative channels may be faster but offer narrower relief. Importers should immediately inventory IEEPA tariff payments, assess statute-of-limitations exposure, and weigh forum selection carefully. Companies that delayed filing protests or suits now face compressed decision windows, and the choice of forum will shape refund scope, interest recovery, and the ability to challenge future tariff actions.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, billions in refunds are flowing through shippers and retailers, and a wave of consumer class actions has followed seeking to recover amounts consumers paid directly or indirectly. Practitioners note that plaintiffs in these cases face significant evidentiary hurdles: tracing any specific price increase to tariffs alone is difficult given that most companies set prices based on multiple inputs, including labor, materials, freight, and demand. Defendants should leverage this multifactorial pricing reality in motions to dismiss and class certification challenges, focusing on the absence of common, tariff-specific injury. Companies should also audit refund pass-through practices and document pricing methodologies now to support defenses and potential indemnification claims against upstream parties receiving IEEPA refunds.

A new Jones Day client alert details recent changes to foreign direct investment regulatory requirements across major global jurisdictions. The guidance covers revised transaction screening processes, updated ownership disclosure mandates, and adjusted national security review thresholds for both inbound and outbound cross-border deals. In-house counsel should use the alert to update their organization’s due diligence checklists and post-closing compliance frameworks, mitigating risk of transaction delays, deal blockage, or enforcement penalties for non-compliance with current rules.

Following a Section 301 investigation into China's technology transfer and intellectual property practices, the White House on March 22, 2018, directed multiple agencies to take action. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will impose an additional 25% ad valorem tariff on a list of Chinese products, set to include aerospace, information and communication technology, and machinery. The USTR will also pursue a case against China's licensing practices at the World Trade Organization. This development is critical for counsel advising clients with Chinese supply chains, as the tariffs will significantly raise import costs. Furthermore, the memorandum directs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to address Chinese investment aimed at acquiring sensitive U.S. technologies, signaling a more challenging environment for inbound M&A. Affected importers should monitor the Federal Register for the finalized product list and prepare to substantiate country-of-origin claims for goods with multinational production histories.

France has broadened the scope of its foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regime by extending a key rule to French companies listed on foreign stock exchanges. A governmental decree now applies the lowered 10% voting-rights acquisition threshold to trigger a mandatory FDI review for non-EU and non-EEA investments in these companies. This measure, initially introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and repeatedly extended, was previously focused on companies listed within Europe.

…

On August 6, 2026, the U.S. government issued a proclamation imposing Section 232 national security tariffs and minimum import prices (MIPs) on imported polysilicon, a core input for solar panels and semiconductor chips. The policy is intended to boost domestic polysilicon production but will raise input costs for downstream buyers that rely on imported supply. Affected in-house counsel should first review existing supply contracts for price adjustment or force majeure clauses, assess eligibility for tariff exclusion requests, and evaluate alternative domestic or third-country polysilicon sourcing options to reduce cost and supply disruption risks.

On July 28, 2026, the FCC expanded its Covered List on a categorical basis, adding power inverters and 'advanced robotic devices' produced in foreign countries to the list of equipment deemed an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security. The action followed a White House-convened interagency determination and means that new models meeting the FCC's 'foreign-produced' definition will not be eligible for equipment authorization, effectively barring their importation or marketing in the United States. Sophisticated counsel and clients should care because the categorical scope reaches two strategically important supply chains: grid-scale and distributed-energy power inverters (touches utilities, renewables developers, and inverter OEMs) and advanced robotics (touches manufacturers, system integrators, and warehouse/automation buyers). The move is part of a broader pattern of using the FCC's Covered List as a tool of supply-chain and technology protectionism. Concrete next steps to watch include FCC equipment-authorization guidance defining 'foreign-produced' and 'advanced robotic devic

…