Newsletter
Legal Insight
- November 6, 2026
Newsletter
Welcome to the Q3 2026 quarterly Supply Chain & Tariff Update, presented by Steptoe & Johnson Member and Supply Chain Team Leader, Randy Whitlatch.
(organized by month)
JAC Prods. v. REF Ala., Inc., No. 2:25-cv-12455, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148645, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 6, 2026)
On defendant’s motion for sanctions following plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, the Court denied the motion, finding that the tier-one automotive supplier’s temporary restraining order filings were not made in bad faith or based on false statements. The dispute arose after a subcontractor threatened to withhold completed parts and inventory absent a price increase, prompting plaintiff to seek emergency relief to prevent a cascading disruption through the automotive supply chain affecting production for original equipment manufacturers(OEM). The Court credited the supplier’s concern that a production halt would ripple through multiple tiers of the automotive supply chain and ultimately affect vehicle assembly. The opinion underscores the urgency courts may recognize in multitier automotive supply chain disputes where downstream OEM operations are at risk.
Takeaway: Tier-one suppliers facing subcontractor holdups should document the downstream supply chain impact with specificity, as courts may credit cascading-disruption arguments when evaluating the propriety of emergency relief.
Aptargroup, Inc. v. ARS Pharms., Inc., No. 25 Civ. 2545 (DEH) (SLC), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149934, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2026)
On plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its trade secret claim, the Court granted the motion, finding the proposed amendments were neither futile nor unduly prejudicial. The amended complaint alleged that a pharmaceutical customer diverted its nasal-device supplier’s trade secrets to a competing manufacturer, doctored confidential manufacturing documents for regulatory submissions, and placed misleading purchase orders to obtain competing components at scale. The supply chain dimension centered on dual-sourcing strategies in which the customer allegedly orchestrated a switch from one sole-source component supplier to a cheaper alternative while misappropriating the incumbent supplier’s proprietary manufacturing data. The opinion reflects the trade secret exposure inherent in close-knit pharmaceutical supply chain relationships where customers have access to suppliers’ confidential process information.
Takeaway: Suppliers sharing confidential manufacturing data with pharmaceutical customers should employ robust contractual and technical safeguards against unauthorized disclosure to competing suppliers, particularly where dual-sourcing arrangements create an economic incentive to switch.
De Simone v. Mendes SA, No. 2025AP838, 2026 Wisc. App. LEXIS 775, at *1 (Wis. Ct. App. July 9, 2026)
On appeal from dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a foreign supply chain participant’s knowledge that production of a probiotic formulation occurred in Wisconsin did not constitute an act or omission within the state sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. The dispute arose after a Swiss buyer was removed from an approved-buyer list for a formulation blended and shipped by a Wisconsin facility and allegedly pressured the facility to continue supplying the product. The Court distinguished between knowing that a supply chain relationship touches a particular state and affirmatively committing a tortious act within that state. The decision highlights the jurisdictional limits of supply chain contracts, particularly in international distribution arrangements involving intermediary production facilities.
Takeaway: Companies operating in international supply chains should recognize that passive awareness of a supplier’s in-state production activities, without more, may be insufficient to subject them to personal jurisdiction in that state.
Binh Thanh Imp. Exp. Prod. v. Amazon.com Servs. LLC, No. 23 Civ. 292 (LGS), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152089, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2026)
On defendant’s motion for sanctions, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice after finding by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff — a Vietnamese manufacturer — fabricated approximately $69 million in purchase orders and demand letters to support its raw materials damages claim arising from the termination of a supply agreement. Forensic analysis revealed that 90 supplier documents were created two days before production using metadata-inconsistent methods, and the plaintiff’s key purchase order bore stamps that were digitally copied rather than authentically affixed. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s cover-up testimony as incredible and noted that audited financial statements showed only $2,077 in goods on consignment, contradicting the claimed $69 million exposure. The opinion serves as a stark illustration of the litigation risks arising from fraudulent supply chain documentation in international manufacturing relationships.
Takeaway: Companies engaged in cross-border manufacturing supply chains should implement document-integrity controls and independent verification procedures for procurement records, as courts will impose severe sanctions where supply chain documentation is found to have been fabricated.
Parris v. 3M Co., No. 4:21-CV-40-TWT, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153197, at *1 (N.D. Ga. July 10, 2026)
On defendant Daikin’s motion for summary judgment in a PFAS contamination class action, the Court granted the motion in part as to short-chain fluorotelomer products sold directly to the end user but denied it as to long-chain products sold through intermediary formulators. The Court found genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Daikin’s introduction of PFOA-containing products into a multi-tier chemical supply chain was a proximate cause of downstream water contamination, noting that Daikin knew its products contained PFOA, knew the end user’s identity, and failed to discuss waste-disposal practices despite its own internal policies. The supply chain architecture — manufacturer to intermediary formulator to textile producer to wastewater treatment plant to public drinking water — was central to the Court’s causation analysis. The opinion illustrates how environmental liability may extend upstream through multi-tier supply chains where a chemical manufacturer has knowledge of downstream use and contamination risk.
Takeaway: Chemical manufacturers selling products through intermediary supply chain participants should proactively engage downstream users on proper handling and disposal, as knowledge of end-use applications and contamination risks may support proximate-cause findings even absent a direct contractual relationship.
Multiple Energy Techs., LLC v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-664, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154628, at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 13, 2026)
On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on Lanham Act, Sherman Act, trade secret, and related claims but allowed tortious interference claims to proceed to trial. The surviving claims arose from allegations that the apparel company pressured its textile manufacturing partners to switch from plaintiff’s bioceramic powder to a competitor’s product after terminating a short-term exclusivity arrangement, thereby disrupting plaintiff’s existing supply chain relationships. The Court found that deposition testimony created a genuine dispute as to whether defendant purposefully directed common manufacturing partners to abandon plaintiff’s product. The opinion highlights the exposure companies face when actively directing supply chain partners to switch component suppliers, particularly where existing contractual relationships are in place.
Takeaway: Companies switching component suppliers should avoid directing shared manufacturing partners to abandon an incumbent supplier’s product, as such conduct may support tortious interference claims even where the underlying supply agreement has expired.
Nordam Grp. LLC v. Sargent Aero. & Def., LLC, No. 123600, 2026 OK CIV APP 28, at *1 (Okla. Civ. App. July 14, 2026)
On appeal from the trial court’s grant of a permanent injunction, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that a long-term supply agreement’s IP purchase option survived termination and that the sole-source component supplier was required to transfer intellectual property to the buyer at the contractually specified price. The dispute arose from a pricing disagreement in an aerospace supply chain where the supplier was the only FAA-approved source for parts used in thrust reversers supplied to an OEM jet manufacturer. The Court credited testimony that without the IP transfer, finding an alternative supplier would take more than five years, and a production halt would cause a “ripple effect” through the aviation supply chain. The opinion underscores the enforceability of IP purchase rights embedded in long-term supply agreements and the public interest in maintaining continuity in regulated aerospace supply chains.
Takeaway: Sole-source suppliers in regulated industries should carefully evaluate survival clauses in long-term supply agreements, as courts may enforce IP transfer obligations even after the underlying pricing relationship has broken down.
Lew v. On Semiconductor Corp., No. CV-24-00594-PHX-SMB, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163262, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 23, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that challenged statements about long-term supply agreements (LTSAs) were either nonactionable puffery or forward-looking statements protected by the PSLRA safe harbor. The class period claims centered on executive representations that the company’s LTSAs were “legally binding” and “watertight,” ensuring “predictable” revenue, while internal records allegedly revealed significant compliance issues, customer cancellations, and over $2 billion in stranded inventory following the post-pandemic normalization of semiconductor demand. The Court found that descriptions of LTSAs as creating “win-win” outcomes were inherently vague and aspirational and that the complaint failed to connect internal LTSA compliance concerns to specific falsity at the time the statements were made. The opinion illustrates the difficulty of maintaining securities fraud claims based on optimistic characterizations of supply chain contractual arrangements, even where internal operational data suggests a more complex picture.
Takeaway: Companies touting the strength of LTSAs to investors should ensure that public characterizations accurately reflect internal compliance data, as post-pandemic demand normalization has heightened scrutiny of supply chain revenue predictability.
Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund v. Abbott Lab’ys, No. 22-cv-4661, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164958, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action arising from the 2022 infant formula recall, the Court granted the motion in its entirety, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity and scienter as to public statements concerning product quality, regulatory compliance, and manufacturing conditions at the company’s facility in Sturgis, Michigan. The facility manufactured nearly half of the company’s domestic formula supply. It served one in five formula-fed infants in the United States, and its temporary shutdown contributed to a nationwide supply shortage. The Court held that receipt of FDA inspection reports documenting manufacturing deficiencies did not establish scienter and that the company’s dominant position in the infant formula supply chain — controlling approximately 40% of the market — did not support a “core operations” inference of executive knowledge. The opinion demonstrates the high pleading bar for securities fraud claims even where supply chain concentration creates systemic risk and a single-facility disruption triggers a nationwide shortage.
Takeaway: Companies whose supply chains are concentrated in a small number of critical facilities should be attentive to the tension between public quality assurances and internal inspection findings, as supply chain concentration may invite securities litigation following operational disruptions.
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Ass’n v. Republic Servs. of Pa. LLC, No. 1:23-CV-00044, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166149, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 27, 2026)
Following a bench trial on civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, the Court imposed a $9.2 million penalty against a landfill operator for 419 NPDES permit exceedances over nearly six years. The Court found the operator delayed installing necessary reverse osmosis treatment despite knowing its facility could not meet permit limits and roughly doubled the calculated economic benefit of noncompliance based on the seriousness, duration, and history of violations. The operator had claimed that global supply chain disruptions during COVID-19 contributed to construction delays, but the Court found these did not cause meaningful delay. The opinion reflects the penalties that may attach when waste management operators fail to invest in treatment infrastructure in a timely manner, even where supply chain constraints are cited as mitigating circumstances.
Takeaway: Waste management and industrial facility operators should not rely on generalized supply chain disruption claims to excuse delayed compliance investments, as courts may find such assertions insufficient to mitigate penalties where the need for infrastructure upgrades was long known.
Pro. Compounding Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Sodergren, No. 2:25-cv-02799-JAM-CSK, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168593, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed a First Amendment compelled-speech challenge to California Board of Pharmacy regulations requiring the disclosure of original API manufacturers on Certificates of Analysis, holding that the disclosure requirement passed Zauderer scrutiny as a factual, uncontroversial requirement reasonably related to preventing consumer deception while allowing a Fifth Amendment takings claim to proceed. The plaintiff — a national repackager and supplier of active pharmaceutical ingredients — argued that the compelled disclosure of its upstream supplier identities destroyed competitively sensitive trade secrets. The supply chain transparency dimension was central: The regulations require participants in the pharmaceutical ingredient supply chain to reveal the identity of upstream manufacturers, creating tension between regulatory transparency objectives and the competitive value of confidential sourcing relationships. The opinion marks an important development in the balance between supply chain transparency mandates and the proprietary value of supplier identity information.
Takeaway: Pharmaceutical supply chain intermediaries should evaluate the competitive impact of regulatory transparency requirements that compel the disclosure of upstream sourcing relationships, as courts may uphold such mandates under rational-basis review while leaving open takings-based challenges.
Mora v. Atlas Aero., LLC, No. 08-24-00352-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 7231, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso July 31, 2026)
On appeal from summary judgment, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims against an aerospace parts manufacturer arising from a fatal trucking accident, holding that the manufacturer lacked sufficient control over its multitier logistics chain to support vicarious liability, respondeat superior, or joint enterprise theories. The manufacturer contracted with a freight forwarder to ship components between its Kansas and Mexico facilities, and the forwarder independently selected carriers and subcontracted drivers, one of whom caused the accident. The Court rejected the argument that participation in the voluntary Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program created legal duties and found no evidence that the manufacturer controlled carrier selection or driver assignments. The decision clarifies the limits of vicarious liability in multitier supply chain logistics arrangements where manufacturers engage freight forwarders that independently subcontract transportation services.
Takeaway: Manufacturers using multitier logistics arrangements should document the independence of freight forwarders and carriers in carrier selection and driver oversight, as the absence of operational control over transportation subcontractors may insulate manufacturers from vicarious liability for accidents in the supply chain.
Mueller v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, No. 25-1162, 185 F.4th 307, at *1 (2d Cir. Aug. 3, 2026)
On appeal from dismissal, the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that providing routine correspondent banking and dollar-clearing services does not constitute “participation in a venture” with a terrorist organization under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The plaintiffs alleged that a global bank facilitated ISIS financial operations by processing transactions through Iraqi banks that maintained correspondent accounts, enabling the organization to access the U.S. dollar-clearing system. The Court found that standard arm’s-length financial services within the correspondent banking supply chain lack the “continuous business relationship” required to establish liability under the statute, even where those services may have incidentally benefited illicit actors. The opinion delineates the limits of financial supply chain liability for intermediary institutions providing routine infrastructure services.
Takeaway: Financial institutions providing correspondent banking and dollar-clearing services should monitor for illicit activity but may take some comfort that routine arm’s-length participation in the financial supply chain infrastructure does not, without more, establish statutory liability for downstream misuse.
Himes v. Five Below, Inc., No. 24-3638, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172389, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2026)
On plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a securities fraud action, the Court certified the class, finding that the Basic presumption of reliance was established and that defendants failed to rebut it for any of the 20 alleged misrepresentations. The claims centered on the discount retailer’s “trend-right” merchandising strategy, which depended on the company’s ability to rapidly identify, source, and stock trending items through its supply chain network. Analysts had specifically cited “enhancements to its supply chain network” as a key performance driver, and plaintiffs alleged that management attributed merchandising failures to external macroeconomic conditions while concealing internal supply chain execution problems and significant inventory shrink. The opinion reflects the securities litigation exposure that may arise when a company’s public narrative emphasizes supply chain capabilities that allegedly diverge from internal operational realities.
Takeaway: Retailers whose investment thesis depends on supply chain execution should ensure that public statements about sourcing capabilities and inventory management are consistent with internal operational data, as supply chain performance narratives may become a focal point in securities class actions.
Wuxi Apptec Co. v. United States DOD, No. 26-2069 (JEB), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177287, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 7, 2026)
On plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court enjoined the Department of Defense from enforcing a “Chinese military company” designation under the NDAA, finding the designation was arbitrary and capricious where all three agency rationales were based on misreadings of the evidentiary record. The plaintiff — a global contract research, development, and manufacturing organization serving over 4,000 pharmaceutical customers — demonstrated that the designation triggered an immediate cascade of supply chain disruptions as customers canceled contracts, suspended shipments, and adopted categorical policies against dealing with the designated entity. The Court credited evidence that pharmaceutical outsourcing relationships, once lost, are effectively gone for good given multiyear drug development timelines. The opinion illustrates the devastating supply chain consequences of national security designations in the pharmaceutical sector and the judicial willingness to intervene where the evidentiary basis for a designation is demonstrably flawed.
Takeaway: Companies operating in global pharmaceutical supply chains should develop contingency plans for national security designations, as a single regulatory action can trigger irreversible customer defections across the supply chain even before the designation becomes final.
Operating Eng’rs Constr. Indus. v. Neogen Corp., No. 1:25-cv-802, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178307, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action, the Court dismissed the complaint, finding that statements about postmerger supply chain integration progress were either inactionable puffery, forward-looking statements protected by the PSLRA safe harbor, or not pled with the requisite scienter. Following a $5.3 billion acquisition, the company transitioned from “pen and paper” supply chain management to an SAP ERP system that experienced severe postimplementation failures, including an inability to ship products, fulfill orders, or track inventory and manufacturing equipment that “kept failing” after relocation. The Court found that executive statements about being “on track” with integration were accompanied by repeated disclosures of inefficiencies and that the complaint failed to allege the executives knew the statements were false when made. The opinion demonstrates the difficulty of pleading securities fraud based on supply chain integration challenges in the postmerger context, particularly where the company provided contemporaneous disclosures about operational difficulties.
Takeaway: Companies undertaking postmerger supply chain integrations should provide candid contemporaneous disclosures about integration challenges, as doing so may serve as a defense against securities fraud claims alleging that optimistic characterizations of the integration progress were misleading.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy v. Origis USA LLC, No. 25-cv-09319-HSG, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181733, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court granted in part and denied in part, allowing fraud and misrepresentation claims to proceed where a solar developer allegedly made specific assurances that it had secured supply agreements for major equipment —including battery storage systems, solar panels, and racking — while later reversing course and citing evolving tariff conditions and BESS pricing challenges. The dispute arose from power purchase agreements in which the developer repeatedly demanded price increases and schedule extensions, citing supply chain constraints and trade policy uncertainty while allegedly misrepresenting the status of its equipment procurement. The Court found that specific mid-November 2024 assurances regarding secured supply chain commitments were sufficiently pled as false to survive dismissal. The opinion highlights the litigation risks arising from supply chain representations in long-term renewable energy procurement contracts, particularly in the current tariff environment.
Takeaway: Renewable energy developers should exercise caution when representing the status of equipment procurement and supply chain readiness to counterparties, as specific assurances about secured supply agreements may be actionable if the developer subsequently claims changed market conditions prevent performance.
Axle of Dearborn, Inc. v. Dep’t of Com., No. 25-00091, 2026 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 117, at *1 (Ct. Int’l Trade Aug. 13, 2026)
On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the Court of International Trade held that the president possesses authority under IEEPA to rescind the de minimis import exemption while reserving judgment on whether IEEPA authorizes the imposition of tariffs following the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. The plaintiff — a family-run auto parts distributor that structured its business around shipping sub-$800 orders from a Mexican distribution center — challenged the elimination of the exemption that had been the foundation of its supply chain and operating model. The Court found that the de minimis exemption is a statutory “privilege” that IEEPA empowers the president to “nullify” or “void” and that agency actions implementing the president’s directive were ministerial and unreviewable. The opinion has significant implications for supply chain models built around the de minimis threshold, particularly for distributors operating cross-border repackaging and direct-to-consumer fulfillment operations.
Takeaway: Distributors and e-commerce businesses that have structured supply chain operations around the de minimis import exemption should prepare for its elimination, as courts have upheld executive authority to rescind the exemption and Congress has enacted legislation repealing it effective 2027.
In re Boeing Co. Derivative Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 2024-1210-MTZ, 2026 Del. Ch. LEXIS 350, at *1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 13, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative action asserting Caremark claims, the Court of Chancery dismissed for failure to plead demand futility, finding that the board maintained an extensive reporting and oversight system for manufacturing safety and supply chain risks and that the alleged red flags were, at most, yellow flags not indicative of conscious disregard. The derivative claims arose from a door plug blowout incident caused by missing bolts on a fuselage supplied by a key supplier that produced approximately 70% of each aircraft. The board had authorized a $100 million investment in the supplier and ultimately agreed to acquire it to “promote supply chain stability.” The Court found that the board’s receipt of regular supply chain updates, establishment of repair stations for defective supplier components, and creation of the Supply Chain Engineering Initiatives team demonstrated good-faith oversight rather than the conscious disregard required for a Caremark claim. The opinion illustrates that Caremark liability requires more than supply chain quality challenges, even where those challenges contribute to a high-profile safety incident.
Takeaway: Boards overseeing companies with complex supply chains should establish and document robust reporting systems for supplier quality and manufacturing risks, as demonstrated oversight engagement may defeat Caremark claims even following significant supply chain-related safety events.
Eight Sleep Inc. v. Orion Longevity Inc., No. 2:26-cv-02460-SB-KS, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184756, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2026)
On cross-motions to dismiss, the Court denied a Hong Kong-based supply chain management company’s jurisdictional challenge, finding personal jurisdiction under the stream-of-commerce theory where the company sourced manufacturers, coordinated production, inspected goods, and shipped finished products from Chinese factories to the United States for a competitor’s sleep product. The Court also allowed counterclaims alleging the patent holder sent threatening letters to overseas manufacturing partners and dispatched personnel to inspect a competitor’s factory, causing the manufacturing partner to suspend work and forcing the competitor to source replacement suppliers. The supply chain dimension was central to both the jurisdictional and counterclaim analyses: The sourcing company’s end-to-end involvement in the overseas manufacturing and U.S. import supply chain supported jurisdiction, while the alleged campaign against a competitor’s manufacturing partners illustrated the vulnerability of supply chain relationships to strategic disruption. The opinion highlights the jurisdictional exposure of foreign supply chain intermediaries that actively coordinate U.S.-bound manufacturing and the potential liability of patent holders that target competitors’ supply chain partners.
Takeaway: Companies engaged in supply chain management services for U.S.-bound products should be aware that active coordination of manufacturing, quality inspection, and shipping may subject them to personal jurisdiction in the United States, and patent holders should exercise caution before directing enforcement efforts at competitors’ overseas manufacturing partners.
Camel Grp. Co. v. United States, No. 25-00022, 2026 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 119, at *1 (Ct. Int’l Trade Aug. 14, 2026)
On plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record, the Court remanded the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force’s (FLETF) denial of a Chinese battery manufacturer’s request for removal from the UFLPA Entity List, holding that the FLETF must apply a “clear and convincing evidence” standard rather than a “reasonable cause to believe” standard when evaluating removal requests. The listing was connected to the PRC government’s labor transfer program in which ethnic minority workers were assigned from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region to factories in eastern China. The Court established the first judicial framework for the burden of proof applicable to Entity List removal proceedings, requiring the listed entity to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it no longer meets the statutory criteria. The opinion has significant implications for supply chain compliance, as it defines the evidentiary standard companies must meet to restore access to U.S. markets after a forced-labor-related supply chain designation.
Takeaway: Companies on the UFLPA Entity List seeking to restore their position in U.S. supply chains should prepare for a “clear and convincing evidence” standard when petitioning for removal, requiring robust documentation that the conditions underlying the listing no longer exist.
Env’t Working Grp. v. Food Safety, No. 23-cv-03806 (APM), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190092, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2026)
On cross-motions for summary judgment in a FOIA action, the Court granted summary judgment for the government, holding that a meat producer’s greenhouse gas accounting methodology and emissions source documentation submitted to FSIS for climate-friendly beef labeling approval were properly withheld as trade secrets and confidential commercial information under Exemption 4. The withheld documents detailed the specific nodes in the beef production life cycle where supplier interventions could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the data collection methods used across the supply chain from pasture to production. The Court credited the producer’s showing that disclosure would enable competitors to reverse-engineer the climate-smart beef program, identify supplier qualification criteria, and replicate supply chain interventions without comparable investment. The opinion affirms the proprietary value of supply chain sustainability methodologies and the competitive significance of detailed supply chain emissions mapping in the emerging market for climate-differentiated agricultural products.
Takeaway: Companies developing supply chain sustainability programs for product labeling should treat detailed emissions methodologies, supplier intervention strategies, and supply chain data collection practices as protectable trade secrets, as courts may recognize their competitive value under FOIA Exemption 4.
Cameron v. Ashukian, No. 3:25-cv-332-MOC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196896, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action, the Court denied the motion in part, allowing 14 of 35 challenged statements to survive, including representations that a doughnut company could execute a nationwide quick-service restaurant partnership using its existing hub-and-spoke distribution infrastructure without significant capital expenditure. Confidential witness testimony described severe supply chain failures, including production facilities overwhelmed by volume increases, delivery drivers unable to meet tight distribution windows, and the eventual need to fully outsource U.S. logistics operations — all contrary to public assurances of supply chain readiness. The Court found that allegations of actual knowledge were adequately pled where executives had access to internal data reflecting logistical breakdown and continued to represent that existing distribution capacity was sufficient. The opinion highlights the securities litigation risk inherent in public representations about supply chain scalability, particularly where a company’s distribution model is being stretched to accommodate a transformative commercial partnership.
Takeaway: Companies entering supply chain-intensive commercial partnerships should ensure that public representations about distribution capacity and logistics readiness are supported by internal operational assessments, as confidential witness testimony about supply chain failures may support scienter allegations in securities litigation.
N.A. of Wholesaler-Distribs. v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-1334-SI, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193458, at *1 (D. Or. Aug. 27, 2026)
Following a five-day bench trial, the Court upheld Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act against dormant commerce clause and due process challenges, finding that the extended producer responsibility regime does not discriminate against interstate commerce, imposes no substantial burden on the supply chain, and does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the private producer responsibility organization. The trade association plaintiff — representing approximately 35,000 wholesaler-distributors operating in the interior of the supply chain — argued that the fee structure disproportionately burdens midchain supply chain participants that operate on thin margins and lack the ability to change upstream packaging decisions. The Court found that the regulatory incentives, while imperfectly aligned with supply chain decision making authority, were not clearly excessive relative to the state’s environmental objectives. The opinion has significant implications for supply chain participants across the country as additional states consider similar extended producer responsibility legislation.
Takeaway: Wholesalers and distributors should monitor the expansion of extended producer responsibility legislation and assess the fee exposure associated with packaging materials flowing through their supply chains, as courts may uphold such regimes even where the regulatory burden falls on midchain participants with limited influence over packaging design.
PBC v. United States Dep’t of War, No. 26-cv-01996-RFL, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194178, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2026)
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiff, holding that the Department of Defense’s designation of an AI company as a “supply chain risk to national security” under 10 U.S.C. Section 3252 violated the APA as arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and that the accompanying governmentwide ban and secondary boycott constituted unlawful First Amendment retaliation. The supply chain risk designation — a statute directed at covert acts of sabotage or subversion of national security systems — was applied to an AI company based on a four-page memorandum that postdated two of the three challenged actions and contained no substantiated evidence that the company could alter or disable deployed AI models. The Court found the designation triggered an immediate and permanent bar affecting the entire federal technology supply chain, including a secondary boycott prohibiting all defense contractors from any commercial activity with the designated entity. The opinion establishes important limits on the use of supply chain risk statutes for retaliatory purposes and underscores the devastating commercial consequences of national security supply chain designations.
Takeaway: Technology companies in the federal supply chain should understand that supply chain risk designations carry immediate secondary-boycott effects extending well beyond direct government contracts, but courts may intervene where the statutory basis for the designation is unsupported by the administrative record.
Fresenius USA Mfg. v. Much, No. 26-cv-13572-DJC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196097, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 31, 2026)
On plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court enjoined a former vice president of supply chain from working for a direct competitor in the dialysis products market through the duration of his 12-month noncompete period. The Court found a likelihood of success on the merits where the executive had access to highly confidential supply chain information — including pricing, vendor relationships, manufacturing processes, cost structures, and strategic sourcing plans — for the company’s entire North American supply chain network and accepted a position with a recently spun-off competitor in the same industry. The Court credited the argument that the executive’s deep knowledge of supply chain operations and supplier negotiations would inevitably benefit the competitor. The opinion reflects the enforceability of noncompete agreements where the departing employee’s supply chain expertise poses a direct competitive risk.
Takeaway: Companies should consider the enforceability of noncompete agreements as a tool for protecting competitively sensitive supply chain information, particularly where senior supply chain executives have access to pricing, vendor relationships, and strategic sourcing plans that would be directly valuable to a competitor.
Sue Kim v. Target Corp., No. CV 26-2910-GW-SSCx, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197944, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2026)
On defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative consumer class action challenging “sustainably caught” tuna labeling, the Court denied the motion in part, finding that the retailer’s Article III standing challenge failed entirely and that an unjust enrichment claim survived while dismissing fraud-based claims with leave to amend due to a Rule 9(b) specificity deficiency rather than on the merits. The plaintiff alleged that the retailer’s store-brand tuna products bore false sustainability certifications despite being sourced from fisheries using purse seine nets and longlines that indiscriminately harm marine life. The Court noted that the products’ own labels disclosed the catching method, providing a degree of supply chain traceability on the packaging itself, and declined to hold at the pleading stage that the labels were, “without question, not deceptive.” The opinion signals that sustainability representations tied to seafood supply chain sourcing practices may face consumer class action scrutiny, particularly where the supply chain traceability information on the packaging itself may undercut the sustainability claim.
Takeaway: Retailers making sustainability claims about sourced products should ensure that supply chain sourcing practices are consistent with the representations on product labels, as courts may allow consumer fraud claims to proceed where the underlying supply chain practices allegedly contradict the marketed attributes.
Recondition Geek, NA. LLC v. Drip Cap., Inc., No. 25-25388-CIV-MORENO, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201246, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2026)
On defendant’s motions to dismiss under Colorado River abstention, transfer venue, and failure to state a claim, the Court denied all three motions, allowing claims arising from allegedly unauthorized UCC financing statement filings to proceed in the plaintiff’s chosen forum. The plaintiff — a Florida-based seller of refurbished consumer electronics on Amazon’s marketplace — alleged that the supply chain financing company filed UCC liens without authorization, causing Amazon to freeze the seller’s funds and account and disrupting its entire e-commerce supply chain. The Court found that the plaintiff’s choice of forum was entitled to deference and that the complaint adequately stated claims despite a parallel California action filed by the financing company. The opinion illustrates the intersection of supply chain finance and e-commerce platform operations where unauthorized financing filings can cascade through platform payment systems to disrupt a seller’s entire distribution and fulfillment chain.
Takeaway: E-commerce sellers relying on supply chain financing arrangements should carefully review the scope of any UCC filing authorizations, as unauthorized filings may trigger platform-level account freezes that disrupt the entire online sales and fulfillment operation.
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., No. 22-cv-6339 (AS), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200933, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2026)
On cross-motions for summary judgment in a securities fraud class action, the Court denied summary judgment on the majority of challenged statements and allowed scheme-liability and control-person claims to proceed to trial. The claims centered on allegations that the world’s largest dental products manufacturer concealed severe supply chain constraints — including a one-year Schick product backorder posing a $55 million risk, a $54 million chip shortage known for 18 months, and massive product returns — while publicly characterizing the supply chain as “terrific” and the company as “well positioned.” The Court found that 21 of 25 challenged statements survived as actionable and that internal communications describing supply chain crises and aggressive channel-stuffing practices created genuine disputes as to falsity and scienter. The opinion represents a significant development in securities litigation involving supply chain concealment, as the case now proceeds to trial on the theory that executives affirmatively misrepresented the state of supply chain operations to investors.
Takeaway: Companies experiencing supply chain disruptions should ensure that public disclosures accurately reflect internal supply chain conditions, as internal communications documenting supply chain crises — including product shortages, quality defects, and channel-stuffing — may be used at trial to establish that optimistic public statements were knowingly false.
Aramark Refreshment Servs. LLC v. First Class Vending, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-05884-SB-PVC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203887, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss claims arising from an $89 million acquisition, the Court allowed breach of contract and implied covenant claims to proceed while dismissing negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and premature indemnification claims. The acquirer alleged that the target inflated its financial metrics by diverting products from the vending and micro-market supply chain to unauthorized distribution channels, thereby misrepresenting EBITDA, customer contract value, and the overall integrity of supply chain and distribution operations during due diligence. The Court found the breach of contract claims based on APA representations and warranties were adequately pled. The opinion underscores the importance of supply chain integrity verification in M&A due diligence, particularly where a target’s financial performance may be inflated through unauthorized product diversion outside the represented distribution channels.
Takeaway: Acquirers should independently verify supply chain and distribution integrity during due diligence, as product diversion to unauthorized channels may artificially inflate financial metrics presented by the target and give rise to postclosing claims for breach of representations and warranties.
A&Y Nutrition, LLC v. Biovation Labs, LLC, No. 23cv1528 (EP) (AME), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203940, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2026)
On defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, the Court denied the motion in its entirety, finding genuine disputes of material fact as to breach of contract, implied covenant, promissory estoppel, and lost profits claims arising from unfulfilled blanket purchase orders for dietary supplement raw materials. The plaintiff — a raw materials supplier — alleged that a contract manufacturer ceased making callouts against BPOs for turmeric, quercetin, and ascorbic acid after the plaintiff had procured and warehoused inventory in reliance on the committed quantities and that the manufacturer’s downstream customer directed it to terminate the relationship. The Court applied the UCC’s “reasonable time” framework to BPOs lacking express expiration dates and found triable questions as to whether the manufacturer anticipatorily repudiated its supply chain commitments. The opinion highlights the risks associated with informal supply chain commitment structures, particularly where suppliers incur significant procurement and warehousing costs in reliance on blanket purchase orders that lack clear duration or termination provisions.
Takeaway: Suppliers and contract manufacturers should ensure that blanket purchase orders contain clear expiration dates and termination provisions, as courts may apply the UCC’s open-ended “reasonable time” framework where such terms are absent, leaving both parties exposed to disputes over the duration and enforceability of supply chain commitments.
Earth v. JBS USA Food Co., No. 2025-CAB-6549, 2026 D.C. Super. LEXIS 22, at *1 (D.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 10, 2026)
On defendants’ special motion to dismiss under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, the Court denied the motion, holding that a major beef producer’s net-zero emissions and deforestation commitments fell within the Anti-SLAPP Act’s commercial-transaction exemption because they constituted representations of fact directed at potential customers for the purpose of promoting JBS products. The nonprofit plaintiff alleged that the world’s largest animal protein producer misrepresented its sustainability goals by claiming a 2040 net-zero target while excluding Scope 3 emissions — accounting for 97% of total emissions — and by touting efforts to eliminate illegal Amazon deforestation from its supply chain while continuing to source from producers linked to illegal deforestation, with one executive admitting the company had “zero operational, legal or contractual control over its supply chain.” Relying on the D.C. Court of Appeals’ decision in Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola Co., the Court found that statements about the environmental impact and sourcing practices underlying JBS’ products were commercial speech relating to the quality of goods and services and that website content, paid newspaper placements, and sustainability reports were directed at potential consumers. The opinion extends the application of consumer protection law to supply chain sustainability representations by major food producers, signaling that corporate emissions and deforestation commitments tied to sourcing operations may be treated as factual claims subject to consumer protection scrutiny.
Takeaway: Food producers making public sustainability commitments concerning supply chain emissions and deforestation should ensure those representations are supported by operational plans and supply chain controls, as courts may treat such statements as actionable factual claims directed at consumers rather than protected advocacy on public interest issues.
PBC v. United States Dep’t of War, No. 26-1049, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29435, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 25, 2026)
On petitions for review of a covered procurement action under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, the D.C. Circuit denied relief, holding that the secretary of war reasonably excluded an AI company’s products from the Department’s supply chain after the company refused to remove contractual prohibitions on the use of its models for lethal autonomous warfare and mass domestic surveillance. The Court concluded that the company’s acknowledged ability to manipulate the design and operation of its AI models through constitutional training and usage restrictions constituted a “supply chain risk” within the meaning of 41 U.S.C. Section 4713, rejecting the company’s argument that the statute requires a showing of hostile motive or surreptitious conduct. The Court further held that the secretary’s finding of urgency was supported by the record — including a disputed incident involving the use of AI in an overseas military operation and the rapid pace of AI model development — and that any procedural error in providing postdeprivation rather than predeprivation notice was harmless where the company’s subsequent submissions did not persuade the department to reverse course. The Court also rejected First Amendment retaliation claims, finding that the exclusion resulted from the company’s refusal to agree to an “all lawful uses” contract term rather than from its public advocacy on AI safety, and it declined to follow a Northern District of California decision that had set aside a parallel supply chain risk designation under the narrower definition in 10 U.S.C. Section 3252. The opinion is a landmark decision on the scope of federal supply chain security authorities as applied to AI technology providers and signals broad judicial deference to executive supply chain risk determinations in the national security context.
Takeaway: Technology companies supplying AI products to the federal government should recognize that contractual usage restrictions, even those motivated by legitimate safety concerns, may be characterized as a statutory supply chain risk justifying exclusion from the federal procurement supply chain and that courts will afford substantial deference to executive national security judgments in reviewing such exclusions.
Titan Logistics Group LLC v. Tischler, No. 26-3648, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29675 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2026)
On Ohio’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit held that Ohio had not shown a likelihood of success sufficient to resume enforcement of geographic restrictions that effectively required certain upstream operations to occur in Ohio but narrowed the district court’s broader injunction. Ohio Senate Bill 56 reclassified certain higher-THC products that remain hemp under federal law as marijuana, requiring plaintiffs — hemp cultivators, processors, manufacturers, distributors, and sellers — to participate in Ohio’s licensed marijuana market. The court found a likely dormant commerce clause problem because Ohio prohibited dispensaries from sourcing marijuana outside the state and, as administered, required facilities seeking licenses to be located in Ohio, effectively requiring products sold in the state’s lawful market to be cultivated or processed there. Requiring upstream commercial operations to occur in-state when they could occur elsewhere constituted geographic discrimination, and the federal Farm Bill does not clearly authorize it. Ohio nevertheless remained free to enforce nondiscriminatory licensing, testing, packaging, labeling, warning, age, and health-and-safety requirements.
Takeaway: States may regulate products sold within their borders, but the dormant commerce clause can limit rules that effectively require manufacturers to relocate upstream cultivation, processing, or other supply chain operations into the regulating state.
In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 22-cv-02094-AMO, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219475 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2026)
On plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the Court certified a securities class arising from Lucid’s allegedly misleading statements about its ability to meet electric vehicle production targets. Plaintiffs alleged that Lucid maintained that it could produce 20,000 vehicles in 2022 and emphasized industrywide supply chain and logistics disruptions as risks even though it allegedly suffered from pervasive internal logistics problems, including unreliable inventory systems, an overcapacity warehouse, and vehicle redesign issues that impeded production. Lucid subsequently reduced its production forecast first to 12,000-14,000 vehicles, citing supply chain constraints and quality, and later to 6,000-7,000 vehicles while acknowledging that limitations in its own logistics system had compounded its difficulties. The Court found that defendants had not rebutted the fraud-on-the-market presumption by disproving price impact and rejected an asserted mismatch between the challenged statements and corrective disclosures, finding that reduced production figures and the disclosure of internal logistics problems were sufficiently connected to earlier statements portraying external supply chain conditions as the principal production risk.
Takeaway: Manufacturers should distinguish external supply chain disruption from internal logistics and production deficiencies when explaining missed or threatened production targets; disclosure of industrywide shortages may not adequately disclose materially different problems within the company’s own operations.
Bruder v. Plug Power Inc., No. 1:24-CV-406 (MAD/DJS), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219821 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court largely permitted securities-fraud claims against hydrogen energy company Plug Power and certain executives to proceed based on allegedly misleading statements concerning the timing and viability of its hydrogen production projects. Plaintiffs alleged that Plug continued making aggressive construction and production projections while experiencing liquidity and operational problems that were disrupting its supply chain. Former employees allegedly reported that Plug was not paying vendors and contractors, causing suppliers to withhold parts or services and interfering with the company’s ability to obtain components needed to complete its projects. Although Plug publicly identified inflation, raw material availability, vendor performance, and the possibility that suppliers might be unable or unwilling to perform as risks, plaintiffs alleged that these problems had already materialized. The court found sufficient allegations of actionable misstatements or omissions, scienter, and loss causation, although it dismissed plaintiffs’ separate scheme-liability theory.
Takeaway: A company may face securities exposure when it continues to characterize supplier disruption as a hypothetical risk after liquidity problems, vendor nonpayment, component shortages, or supplier interruptions have already begun affecting operations.
Cherches v. AMMO Inc., No. CV-24-02619-PHX-DJH, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221649 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2026)
On defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court permitted significant portions of investors’ securities claims to proceed, based in part on AMMO’s representations concerning its new manufacturing facility in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. AMMO repeatedly touted the facility’s production capacity and ability to scale output, but plaintiffs alleged that the transition caused delays and that the plant suffered from broken presses and machinery, primer and other supply shortages, downtime, and production constraints, eventually causing AMMO to purchase ammunition overseas for repackaging and resale. The Court found numerous statements concerning the facility sufficiently pleaded as false or misleading and material, emphasizing that AMMO’s Ammunition Segment generated approximately 63% of company revenue and that Manitowoc was to become its sole production site. It also rejected broad reliance on the PSLRA safe harbor: Statements about current production capacity were present facts, and boilerplate warnings about supply chain disruption did not necessarily protect projections where machinery failures and production limitations allegedly had already materialized. The Court allowed specified manufacturing-capacity claims against AMMO and certain executives to proceed while dismissing other claims and defendants.
Takeaway: Manufacturing capacity, equipment reliability, component availability, and actual throughput can become disclosure issues when a company touts production capabilities, and generic supply chain warnings may not adequately disclose known operational constraints that are already preventing promised output.
Sevillo Fine Foods LLC v. United States, No. 2:25-cv-00273-DBP, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222011 (D. Utah Sept. 28, 2026).
In litigation over the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), the Court rejected a specialty-food manufacturer’s contention that pandemic-related supply chain disruption constituted a qualifying suspension of operations. Sevillo relied on a single Turkish supplier for specially processed tomato products used in approximately 75% of its products, which traveled through the Port of Long Beach before reaching its Utah facility. Sevillo alleged that COVID-19-related governmental measures reduced port staffing, contributed to congestion and shipping delays, restricted production, and forced the cancellation of customer orders. The Court concluded that the identified governmental measures either were not qualifying orders or did not require the port to suspend commerce and that the causal chain from workplace restrictions through port operations and independent ocean carriers to Sevillo’s Utah operations was too attenuated. It also rejected company’s reliance on IRS supply chain guidance because that guidance contemplated a qualifying governmental order suspending the supplier’s operations; Sevillo’s Turkish supplier continued manufacturing and shipping the tomato products, and the interruption occurred principally during transportation through a congested but operating port.
Takeaway: A single-source dependency, port congestion, transportation delays, increased freight costs, and reduced production may constitute serious commercial supply chain disruption without establishing the direct supplier shutdown and governmental causation required to constitute a legal suspension of operations for ERC purposes.
On July 1, the United States, Mexico, and Canada conducted the first six-year joint review of the USMCA. The United States did not agree to renew the agreement in its current form, meaning the USMCA was not extended for another 16-year term. Importantly, however, the agreement remains in force while the parties continue negotiations and, absent an extension or earlier termination, remains subject to the review mechanism established by Article 34.7. Later in July, the United States and Mexico completed their third bilateral negotiating round, addressing automobiles, steel and aluminum and derivative products, economic security, labor, agriculture, and electronic payment services, with particular emphasis on strengthening North American manufacturing and preventing “free-riding” by nonparties. The parties scheduled a fourth bilateral round for September; however, there is no record of this round actually taking place in September.
Resources: USTR — July 1 USMCA Joint Review Statement | USTR — July 23 United States-Mexico Joint Statement
Takeaway: USMCA preferences remain available, but manufacturers should not equate the continued operation of the agreement with long-term regulatory stability. Automotive and industrial suppliers in particular should model possible changes to rules of origin, treatment of non-North American inputs, steel and aluminum requirements, and other measures intended to ensure that USMCA benefits accrue primarily within North America.
On July 9, the president concurred with Commerce’s Section 232 finding that imports of commercial aircraft, jet engines, and associated parts threaten to impair national security. The proclamation did not impose an immediate tariff. Instead, it directed Commerce and USTR to negotiate with trading partners to address the identified threat and required an update to the president within 180 days. Commerce’s determination emphasized the relationship between the commercial aerospace industrial base and defense production, including shared suppliers, manufacturing capacity, skilled labor, and the potential for import dependence to increase costs and procurement backlogs.
Resources: White House — Commercial Aircraft, Jet Engines, and Parts Proclamation | White House — Aerospace Section 232 Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Aerospace manufacturers should treat the Section 232 finding as consequential even without an immediate tariff. It establishes the national security predicate for later import restrictions and places foreign sourcing of aircraft, engines, and components under continuing federal scrutiny.
On July 15, USTR imposed an additional 25% Section 301 tariff on specified Brazilian goods following its investigation into Brazilian practices involving digital trade and electronic payment services, preferential tariffs, anti-corruption enforcement, intellectual property protection, ethanol market access, and illegal deforestation. The action followed USTR’s June determination that specified Brazilian practices were unreasonable and burdened or restricted U.S. commerce. Although the action is not principally a supply chain measure, it adds another country-specific tariff regime that importers must consider alongside Section 232, ordinary duties, and other Chapter 99 measures when sourcing Brazilian products.
Resources: USTR — July 15 Brazil Section 301 Action | USTR — Brazil Section 301 Investigation Materials
Takeaway: Companies sourcing from Brazil should identify whether imported SKUs fall within the covered product lists and incorporate the additional Section 301 duty into landed-cost and alternative-sourcing analyses rather than assuming Brazil remains outside the expanding network of country-specific U.S. trade measures.
On July 20, Executive Order 14415 directed the Department of War to develop regulations imposing substantially greater supply chain visibility requirements on defense contractors. Most notably, the contemplated rules must require contractors to submit a complete indentured bill of materials tracing components, parts, equipment, software, and materials back to raw-material origin and to establish written procedures for vetting suppliers and subcontractors. Required risk screening must address, at minimum, financial condition; foreign ownership, control, or influence; and manufacturing and supply risk. The order defines a “critical supply chain” to encompass all tiers of suppliers and subcontractors supplying goods, materials, systems, software, or services essential to contract performance, mission assurance, security, or resilience.
Resources: Executive Order 14415 — Securing America’s Defense Supply Chains | White House Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Defense manufacturers should begin evaluating whether their ERP, BOM, supplier certification, and procurement systems can actually trace critical inputs beyond Tier 1 and Tier 2 to raw-material origin. The contemplated regime represents a significant movement from contractor-level compliance toward mandatory deep-tier supply chain mapping.
Executive Order 14415 also directs a broader restructuring of defense sourcing. The order limits circumstances in which statutory waivers may permit critical materials from covered nations, directs contractors to identify and qualify alternative domestic or allied sources where they rely on designated “unreliable foreign suppliers,” and contemplates mitigation plans to onshore vulnerable supply chains. The order defines manufacturing-and-supply risk to include sole sourcing, supplier concentration, inadequate surge capacity, production delays, obsolescence, industrial limitations, disrupted material delivery, and overreliance on a single source.
Resources: Executive Order 14415 — Full Text | White House — Defense Supply Chain Fact Sheet
Takeaway: The order effectively turns traditional procurement concerns — sole-source exposure, supplier financial health, foreign ownership, surge capacity, and geographic concentration — into potential federal-contract compliance issues. Defense suppliers should begin documenting not merely who supplies a component but also whether viable alternative sources exist.
On July 20, the president issued three proclamations invoking Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, an infrequently used authority permitting retaliation against foreign discrimination affecting U.S. commerce. The proclamations imposed additional 50% duties on specified Canadian motor vehicle, dairy, and alcoholic beverage products, initially effective August 19. The motor vehicle action responded to Canada’s tariff treatment of U.S. vehicles, while the dairy and alcoholic beverage actions addressed separate allegedly discriminatory Canadian measures. Critically, the proclamations establish a tariff regime separate from USMCA: Qualifying USMCA origin does not by itself eliminate Section 338 exposure. The duties were subsequently temporarily suspended in August while negotiations continued, but the July proclamations created the underlying legal framework.
Resources: White House — Motor Vehicle Section 338 Proclamation | White House — Dairy Section 338 Proclamation | White House — Alcoholic Beverage Section 338 Proclamation
Takeaway: Companies with Canadian cross-border supply chains should analyze Section 338 independently from USMCA origin. A product may qualify as originating under USMCA yet remain exposed to an additional Section 338 duty unless it falls within an applicable exclusion or another tariff regime controls its treatment.
On July 23, USTR converted its 60 forced-labor investigations into final Section 301 trade action. The action imposes an additional 10% or 12.5% tariff on products of 60 trading partners, subject to specified product exemptions, based on whether those economies adequately prohibit and enforce restrictions against imports produced with forced labor. The 60 economies account for approximately 99.4% of U.S. imports. Unlike traditional forced-labor enforcement under 19 U.S.C. § 1307 or the UFLPA, the Section 301 action does not depend upon proof that the particular shipment was itself produced with forced labor; the additional tariff responds to the sourcing country’s regulatory regime.
Resources: USTR — July 23 Forced Labor Section 301 Action | USTR — Forced Labor Tariff Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Forced-labor compliance has expanded from a shipment-level detention and admissibility issue into a country-level landed-cost issue. Companies should therefore evaluate both whether particular suppliers present forced-labor risk and whether the country of origin itself triggers additional Section 301 duties.
The third U.S.-Mexico negotiating round concluded July 23 with continued discussions regarding automobiles, steel and aluminum and derivative products, economic security, labor, agriculture, and electronic payment services. USTR and Mexico expressly emphasized strengthening regional supply chains and addressing “free-riding” by nonparties. This builds on earlier negotiations addressing industrial rules of origin and the principle that USMCA benefits should accrue primarily to the three parties. For automotive manufacturers, the negotiations therefore remain important not merely because the agreement was not renewed on July 1 but also because the review process may produce substantive changes affecting the amount and type of third-country content that can move through North American manufacturing while retaining preferential treatment.
Resources: USTR — July 23 U.S.-Mexico Joint Statement | USTR — June Negotiating-Round Statement for Background
Takeaway: Tier 1 and Tier 2 automotive suppliers should consider mapping non-North American content now — particularly electronics, semiconductors, steel and aluminum inputs, and other strategic components — because the tightening treatment of third-country content appears to be a central issue in the ongoing review.
On July 30, the president issued a determination under Section 101 of the Defense Production Act (DPA) finding that inadequate domestic supplies of recoverable critical minerals and materials pose a national defense and supply chain risk. The determination covers critical materials recoverable from sources, including black mass, end-of-life rare-earth permanent magnets, swarf, scrap, and other waste streams. It finds that U.S. import dependence threatens “serious, sustained supply chain disruptions” and authorizes the secretary of commerce to take appropriate action under DPA Section 101, including by instituting regulations, rules, guidance, and procedures. The White House separately stated that the delegated authority includes the ability to institute export restrictions on recoverable critical minerals and materials.
Resources: Presidential Determination — Recoverable Critical Minerals and Materials | White House Critical Minerals Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Federal critical minerals policy is moving beyond mine development toward recycling, recovery, and circular supply chains. Manufacturers using rare-earth magnets, batteries, specialty metals, or other strategic materials should evaluate whether scrap and end-of-life products are becoming commercially and legally important sources of domestic supply.
On August 6, the president imposed a new Section 232 regime on polysilicon and downstream derivatives after Commerce concluded that import dependence threatened national security and the viability of domestic semiconductor- and solar-grade polysilicon production. Beginning December 4, the proclamation establishes minimum import prices of $21/kg for polysilicon, $100/kg for ingots and wafers, $0.22/watt for solar cells, and $0.38/watt for solar modules, together with an additional 15% duty on specified polysilicon derivatives. It also authorizes company-specific incentives for investments in U.S. polysilicon, ingot, wafer, and cell production and provides preferential treatment for certain products whose polysilicon originates entirely in designated trade-agreement partners.
Resource: White House — Polysilicon and Derivatives Proclamation
Takeaway: Semiconductor and solar manufacturers should map polysilicon origin through downstream products rather than stopping at the immediate supplier. The combination of minimum pricing, derivative tariffs, certification requirements, and onshoring incentives makes raw-material provenance increasingly important to both landed cost and sourcing strategy.
On August 13, the president imposed Section 232 tariffs on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and components after Commerce determined that import dependence threatened national security and domestic production capacity. Effective September 3, specified UAS weighing more than 25 kilograms, thermal-imaging UAS, docking stations, and certain critical components are subject to a 100% additional duty, while specified smaller UAS face a 25% rate. Other identified components become subject to a 25% tariff beginning February 9, 2027. The proclamation provides lower treatment for qualifying products from specified allies where substantially all critical components and technology originate within approved countries and authorizes an onshoring program for new U.S. manufacturing. Commerce also may add additional components to the tariff scope on a rolling basis.
Resources: White House — UAS and Components Proclamation | White House — UAS Supply Chain Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Drone manufacturers and downstream users should map not merely the final-product origin but also the origin of critical hardware, software, and technology. Preferential treatment increasingly depends on provenance across the technology stack rather than conventional substantial-transformation analysis alone.
On August 13, the president issued a memorandum directing the Department of War to expand competition and capacity in the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base. The memorandum permits a Finland Model under which foreign shipbuilders may participate in specified U.S. naval procurements if they simultaneously establish or invest in U.S. shipyards, train American workers, license proprietary shipbuilding technology to the U.S. operation, and source a U.S. supply chain for ships constructed and maintained domestically. It also directs the development of a centralized component-repair center capable of maintaining at least one ship set of spare equipment for several submarine classes and seeks to address capacity constraints and backlogs throughout the naval supplier base.
Resource: White House — Rebuilding the U.S. Navy and Shipbuilding Industrial Base
Takeaway: The policy combines selective access to foreign shipbuilding capability with mandatory domestic capacity transfer. Suppliers of marine components, metals, propulsion systems, controls, electronics, and repair services should watch for opportunities created by new U.S. yards and localization requirements.
On August 13, USTR announced the successful resolution of a USMCA Rapid Response Labor Mechanism matter involving Grupo Yazaki’s facility in León, Guanajuato, Mexico. The facility manufactures automotive components, wire harnesses, and electronic components. Following remediation, the United States resumed the liquidation of tariffs on goods from the facility. The matter illustrates the direct connection between labor compliance at an individual Mexican manufacturing facility and the customs treatment and continuity of goods moving through North American automotive supply chains.
Resource: USTR — Grupo Yazaki Rapid Response Mechanism Resolution
Takeaway: Tier 1 and Tier 2 automotive companies should incorporate USMCA labor compliance into supplier-risk monitoring. An RRM proceeding can affect not merely employment practices but also the customs treatment and uninterrupted movement of products from a specific supplier facility.
On August 18, the president suspended the additional Section 338 duties previously imposed on specified Canadian motor vehicles, dairy products, and alcoholic beverages while negotiations continued. The action did not terminate the underlying July Section 338 determinations; rather, it delayed their operation for three days. The short suspension underscored the fluidity of the Canadian measures and the need for importers to distinguish the legal existence of a tariff measure from its current effective date. Subsequent action caused the motor vehicle measures to take effect August 22, with further escalation following in September.
Resource: White House — Temporary Suspension of Canadian Section 338 Duties
Takeaway: Importers should build procedures for incorporating rapidly changing tariff measures into customs operations. Where duties are imposed, suspended, reinstated, or modified within days, entry date and time can become as important as origin and classification.
On August 20, the president issued a new National Space Transportation Policy directing the development of a space transportation industrial-base strategy focused on competition, capacity, workforce, security, and resilience. The memorandum generally requires U.S. government payloads to use vehicles manufactured in the United States, subject to limited exceptions, and directs federal launch agents to support the domestic industrial base, stabilize supply chains, and favor commercial transportation services where appropriate. It also directs agencies to facilitate public-private investment in launch and reentry infrastructure and requires the periodic review of export and market-access policies affecting U.S. space transportation capabilities.
Resources: White House — National Space Transportation Policy | White House — Space Transportation Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Aerospace and space suppliers should expect industrial-base policy to reach beyond launch providers into propulsion, avionics, structures, materials, ground infrastructure, and other supporting supply chains, with federal procurement increasingly favoring domestic manufacturing capacity.
On August 26, Executive Order 14421 declared a national emergency concerning foreign-produced bulk-power-system equipment that may create cybersecurity, sabotage, remote-access, or supply-disruption risks. The order authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to prohibit or condition acquisitions, imports, transfers, or installations involving covered foreign entities and extends beyond physical equipment to include associated critical components, software, firmware, digital services, maintenance services, and remote-access capabilities. Covered equipment includes transformers, generators, turbines, grid-connected inverters, battery storage systems, industrial control systems, relays, circuit breakers, and other bulk-power equipment. DOE must develop implementing rules as needed within 120 days, while federal procurement recommendations must prioritize U.S.-manufactured energy infrastructure.
Resources: Executive Order 14421 — Securing the U.S. Bulk-Power System | White House — Bulk-Power Supply Chain Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Utilities, data center developers, equipment manufacturers, EPC contractors, and suppliers should begin mapping the ownership, manufacturing origin, software, firmware, remote-access capabilities, and life cycle-service providers associated with grid equipment. The emerging regime addresses the entire equipment ecosystem, not simply where a transformer or inverter was assembled.
Executive Order 14421 separately directs the DOE, within 180 days, to recommend changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation so that federal energy-infrastructure procurement more directly accounts for national security supply chain risks and prioritizes U.S.-manufactured energy infrastructure. The FAR Council must then consider proposing implementing amendments for public comment within 90 days after receiving DOE’s recommendations. The directive therefore creates a pathway toward new domestic-sourcing and supplier-risk rules applicable to federal purchases of transformers, generation equipment, storage systems, control systems, and other energy infrastructure.
Resource: Executive Order 14421 — Federal Energy Procurement Provisions
Takeaway: Energy-equipment manufacturers should watch the forthcoming FAR process closely. The eventual rules may combine traditional domestic-preference concepts with cybersecurity, ownership, software-origin, and supplier-risk requirements that go substantially beyond the Buy American Act’s conventional component-cost analysis.
On September 2, CBP issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that could significantly expand the information importers must possess and provide concerning upstream supply chains. CBP is considering requirements concerning parties involved in manufacture, production, movement, and exportation; replacement or expansion of the Manufacturer Identification Code; foreign tax and global business identifiers; supply chain traceability technology; and submission or retention of foreign customs documents, including export declarations, invoices, packing lists, certificates of origin, licenses, and transportation records. CBP also asks whether importers should reconcile discrepancies between foreign export documentation and U.S. entries and how reasonable-care obligations should apply to foreign documentation. Comments are due December 1.
Resource: Federal Register — Heightened Import Disclosures for Supply Chain Visibility
Takeaway: This may be one of the most consequential customs proposals of 2026. Customs compliance could evolve from principally transaction-level entry substantiation toward a requirement that importers possess defensible information about manufacturers, producers, exporters, foreign customs filings, and other upstream participants.
On September 8, the president escalated the Section 338 actions involving Canadian motor vehicles, dairy products, and alcoholic beverages. Five proclamations imposed import bans on specified Canadian products previously subject to the 50% Section 338 duties and modified the products remaining subject to those duties. The product additions and removals became effective September 15, while the import bans became effective September 29. Goods covered by the bans that were imported before September 29 but had not yet been entered for consumption remain subject to the 50% duty rather than the prohibition. Critically, the administration states that the Section 338 tariffs apply regardless of USMCA origin and in addition to Section 232 tariffs. The White House
Resources: White House — September 8 Canada Fact Sheet | Motor-Vehicle Import-Ban Proclamation | Dairy Import-Ban Proclamation | Alcoholic-Beverage Import-Ban Proclamation
Takeaway: Section 338 has moved from a landed-cost issue to a potential supply-continuity issue. Companies importing covered Canadian products need to distinguish products subject to the continuing 50% duty from those prohibited from importation altogether and should not assume that either USMCA origin or Section 232 treatment independently eliminates Section 338 exposure.
On September 15, USTR convened representatives from more than 50 trading partners to provide training concerning the adoption and enforcement of forced-labor import prohibitions. The initiative follows USTR’s July Section 301 action imposing 10% or 12.5% additional tariffs on products of 60 economies, based on those governments’ failure to adopt and effectively enforce forced-labor import prohibitions. The September initiative reflects an effort to encourage other countries to establish enforcement regimes comparable to the United States’ rather than relying exclusively on U.S. detention and tariff measures. USTR’s July action covers trading partners representing approximately 99.4% of U.S. imports. United States Trade Representative
Resources: USTR — Forced Labor Section 301 Action | USTR — Forced Labor Section 301 Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Forced-labor compliance is increasingly becoming a multijurisdictional supply chain requirement. Companies should anticipate supplier diligence developed for UFLPA and Section 1307 purposes eventually needing to support import compliance in multiple destination markets.
On September 16, the administration directed USTR and GSA to restrict Canadian-origin products within federal procurement in response to Canadian procurement preferences. The action is distinct from the Section 338 customs measures and illustrates that country-of-origin consequences can operate independently across customs and government procurement regimes.
Resource: White House — September Canada Response Fact Sheet
Takeaway: Manufacturers should analyze customs origin and procurement eligibility separately. A Canadian-origin product may remain legally importable — and may qualify under USMCA — while nevertheless becoming restricted in federal procurement.
On September 18, the FAR Council released another major tranche of proposed amendments implementing the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. The proposals affect commercial-product acquisition, simplified acquisition, subcontracting, contractor qualifications, transportation, contract types, multiyear contracting, construction, intellectual property, and solicitation and contract clauses. For manufacturers and federal suppliers, the significance lies less in any single amendment than in the potential cumulative effect on procurement workflows and supplier agreements.
Resource: Acquisition.gov — FAR Rulemakings and Requests for Comment
Takeaway: Government contractors should review the overhaul at the clause and operational levels rather than assuming shorter FAR text necessarily means fewer obligations. Changes to commercial-product acquisition, subcontracting, transportation, and contractor qualifications can flow directly into purchasing systems and supplier contracts.
EPA’s revision of the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule remained pending through September 30. EPA has proposed exemptions for PFAS in mixtures or products at concentrations of 0.1% or lower, imported articles, certain by-products, impurities, R&D chemicals, and nonisolated intermediates, but none of those exemptions is yet final. EPA’s April 2026 final rule provides that the reporting period will begin 60 days after the effective date of the forthcoming final revision rather than on the previously scheduled date. The underlying reporting obligation continues to reach PFAS manufactured or imported during the historical 2011-2022 period. US EPA
Resources: EPA — TSCA § 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting and Current Status | EPA — April 2026 Reporting Deadline Update
Takeaway: Manufacturers should not yet treat imported articles or low-concentration PFAS as exempt. Regardless of how EPA ultimately narrows the rule, the exercise demonstrates the growing expectation that manufacturers possess chemical-content information several tiers into their supply chains.
The proposed FAR rule implementing statutory restrictions on covered semiconductor products and services remained pending at quarter-end. The proposal would require contractors to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” concerning covered semiconductor content and make representations regarding covered products or services supplied to the federal government. For manufacturers of complex electronic equipment, that can require visibility into semiconductor provenance several tiers below the finished product.
Resource: Acquisition.gov — Pending FAR Rulemakings
Takeaway: Electronics manufacturers and federal contractors should determine whether existing BOM and supplier systems can identify the manufacturer and provenance of embedded semiconductors. The practical challenge arises precisely where chip-level information disappears below Tier 1 or Tier 2.
On September 25, USTR invoked the USMCA Rapid Response Labor Mechanism concerning the Yokohama Tire Manufacturing Mexico facility in Coahuila following allegations that workers were denied freedom of association and collective-bargaining rights. The facility manufactures tires. USTR directed Treasury to suspend liquidation of all entries of goods from the facility until further notice while Mexico reviews the matter. The action followed the recent closure of Yokohama’s plant in Salem, Virginia, and the layoffs of nearly 600 workers, although the RRM proceeding itself concerns alleged labor-rights violations at the Mexican facility. United States Trade Representative
Resource: USTR — Yokohama Tire RRM Action
Takeaway: This is a particularly useful automotive supply chain development. USMCA labor enforcement can directly affect the customs processing of products from an individual Mexican supplier facility. OEMs and Tier 1/Tier 2 manufacturers should therefore consider labor compliance alongside quality, financial health, capacity, and trade compliance when assessing Mexican suppliers.
On September 27, the United States and China announced recommendations from the newly established U.S.-China Board of Trade identifying approximately $30 billion of nonsensitive trade in each direction for potentially more favorable tariff treatment. The governments published “30-for-30” product lists for consideration. Importantly, the recommendations do not themselves reduce tariffs; the identified products may receive reduced treatment only through subsequent action consistent with each country’s domestic legal processes. The White House
Resources: White House — U.S.-China Board of Trade and 30-for-30 Lists | USTR — September 27 Statement
Takeaway: Companies sourcing covered nonsensitive goods from China should identify whether their HTS classifications appear on the U.S. recommendation list but should not yet price imports on the assumption of tariff relief. The development nevertheless creates a potentially important product-specific pathway for reducing China tariff exposure.
On September 28, the United States and Mexico announced successful resolution of an RRM matter involving Akwel Juárez México’s facility in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. After implementation of a remediation plan addressing alleged employer interference with union activity and retaliatory dismissals, USTR directed Treasury to resume the liquidation of unliquidated entries from the facility. United States Trade Representative
Resource: USTR — Akwel Juárez RRM Resolution
Takeaway: Read together with the Yokohama action three days earlier, the Akwel matter demonstrates that facility-level labor compliance can effectively switch customs liquidation off and back on for an automotive supplier. That makes RRM exposure a concrete supply-continuity consideration for customers dependent on Mexican production.
On September 28, the administration highlighted a new $15 billion integrated steel project involving a new Iowa steel mill supplied by Mesabi Metallics’ recently opened Minnesota iron ore mine. The administration states that the first phase is expected to produce approximately 7.5 million tons of steel annually, eventually increasing to approximately 10 million tons. Although this announcement is principally an industrial-policy and investment development rather than a new legal requirement, it reflects the broader federal strategy of linking domestic mineral extraction directly to downstream metals manufacturing. The White House
Resource: White House — Mined, Melted, and Poured in America
Takeaway: The development reinforces the policy direction already evident in the quarter’s critical minerals and defense supply chain actions: federal supply chain policy increasingly seeks vertically integrated domestic capacity, extending from raw materials through finished industrial products.
On September 30, the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity reached consensus on a new Milwaukee Framework for joint action addressing structural excess capacity and market distortions in global steel production. USTR characterized the framework as a comprehensive basis for coordinated action among participating economies and linked the initiative to U.S. efforts addressing global steel overcapacity and its effects on domestic manufacturers and workers. United States Trade Representative
Resource: USTR — September 30 Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity Materials
Takeaway: Steel policy is increasingly moving beyond unilateral tariffs toward coordinated action addressing production capacity and nonmarket distortions. Steel-consuming manufacturers should monitor implementation because measures intended to protect domestic steel capacity can affect both the availability and the cost of upstream metal inputs.
At the September 30 G20 Trade Ministerial, USTR identified four principal workstreams for the U.S. G20 trade agenda: forced labor in global supply chains, structural excess capacity and production, the weaponization of food, and the most-favored-nation principle. Although the ministerial itself does not impose new legal obligations, it is significant because several of these subjects — particularly forced labor and excess capacity — already produced concrete U.S. trade measures during 2026. United States Trade Representative
Resource: USTR — Ambassador Greer’s September 30 G20 Trade Ministerial Remarks
Takeaway: The agenda suggests that forced labor, industrial overcapacity, and supply security will remain active regulatory and trade-policy issues beyond Q3 rather than isolated 2026 actions.
Copyright © 2026 Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
