Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

  • Home
  • People
  • Practice Areas
    • International Trade
    • International Investment and Project Development
    • International Disputes/Rights & Obligations of Sovereign States & Autonomous Regions
    • U.S. & International Regulation and Legislation
    • Board Advisory Work
  • Global Experience
  • News/Blog
  • Contact Us

January 28, 2021 by Nathaniel Rickard

After an Historic Year at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Court’s Work Has Just Begun

When the American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring filed an appeal at the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the final results of a U.S. Department of Commerce antidumping administrative review, the case was docketed under the number 1:20-cv-3948. It was the final lawsuit filed in 2020 and capped off a remarkable year at the Court. The Court of International Trade has not assigned a case number with four digits since 2001 and has not assigned a case number above 3,000 since 1998. In 2020, the Court assigned more case numbers (3,948) than it had in the previous decade combined (3,486).

Driven principally by challenges to actions taken by the last Administration to impose tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301 of the U.S. trade laws, the caseload now before the Court is well beyond anything it has confronted in twenty years:

Moreover, in response to the existing docket, the Court issued 189 slip opinions in 2020. This represents the largest number of slip opinions issued by the Court of International Trade since 2007:

Although most of the cases docketed with the Court will be resolved without the issuance of slip opinions, lawsuits docketed in 2020 have, as of the end of January 2021, already resulted in the publication of two slip opinions this year.

2021 promises to be a busy year for the Court of International Trade, and the volume of active cases currently on its docket likely poses significant challenges to the Court’s existing resources. At present, the Court has eight active judges, five senior judges, and three inactive senior judges while also being responsible for one of the fifty-three judicial vacancies that exist in federal courts across the country. With the current administration focused on confirmation of its new cabinet and the Senate facing a full spring calendar, there is a risk that this vacancy will take a backseat to other priorities, preventing the Court from returning to full capacity.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: International Law Tagged With: antidumping, countervailing duty, Imports, International Trade, trade

Contact

Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP
1750 K Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: +1 202 331 4040
Fax: +1 202 331 4011
info@pkrllp.com

Recent Posts

  • After an Historic Year at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Court’s Work Has Just Begun
  • Zachary J. Walker and Sophia Lin Named Counsel

Sitemap

PKR LLP Sitemap

© Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. If you have a particular problem or issue for which you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.