← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Pulse Wire & Cable LLC v. United States Customs and Border Protection

No. 1:25-cv-00256 District · Active Active
Court
Federal Court
cit
Judge
Gary S. Katzmann Timothy M. Reif Jane A. Restani
Filed
Nov 11, 2025
Judge (CL)
Gary S. Katzmann Timothy M. Reif Jane A. Restani
Filed (CL)
Nov 11, 2025
CL Status
active

Case Overview

Pulse Wire & Cable LLC sued the Trump administration over President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs and subsequent modifications made to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.


The Application

History

Pulse Wire & Cable challenges the substantive basis for the declared emergency supporting the tariffs, the scope of tariff modifications imposed, and whether the administration followed required procedures for modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

The Conclusion

The case is active in the Court of International Trade; the court has not yet ruled on the merits of whether the tariff authority was properly invoked or implemented.

Federal Court TMR-ae5482a6 IEEPA Tariffs May 18, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

Pulse Wire & Cable LLC sued the Trump administration over President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs and subsequent modifications made to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

Issue

Whether the President possessed authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose the 'Liberation Day' tariffs and subsequently modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and whether such actions complied with statutory procedures and constitutional requirements.

Rule

IEEPA authorizes the President to regulate commerce during an unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. national security or economy only upon declared national emergency; tariff modifications must follow statutory procedural requirements including notice and comment provisions.

Analysis

Pulse Wire & Cable challenges the substantive basis for the declared emergency supporting the tariffs, the scope of tariff modifications imposed, and whether the administration followed required procedures for modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

Conclusion

The case is active in the Court of International Trade; the court has not yet ruled on the merits of whether the tariff authority was properly invoked or implemented.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support