Welcome to the third quarterly Supply Chain & Tariff Update, presented by Steptoe & Johnson Member and Supply Chain Team Leader, Randy Whitlatch.
Watch Related Webinar Sign Up for Quarterly Updates
(organized by month)
In Lew v. ON Semiconductor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131974 (D. Ariz. July 11, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted the defendant semiconductor manufacturer’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss an investor’s second amended securities fraud class action complaint. The defendant had allegedly started using long-term supply agreements (LTSAs) with customers to create predictability in the supply chain after COVID-19 disruptions. The defendant allegedly made statements in SEC filings and on earnings calls characterizing the LTSAs as “legally binding,” providing “supply chain predictability,” and ensuring “win-win” outcomes if customers needed to renegotiate. The defendant subsequently announced that an automotive customer had reneged on its commitment to purchase $200 million of silicon carbide products, causing the stock price to drop 22% under one of the LTSAs, and the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was not actually enforcing the LTSAs. The Court dismissed the complaint, albeit with leave to amend, holding that the statements amounted to puffery or were otherwise too vague, ambiguous, or subjective to serve as the basis for securities fraud claims. The Court also held that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled scienter.
Takeaway: Even though the complaint was dismissed, companies should take care to not overstate or mischaracterize the importance or effect of ordinary supply chain tools such as LTSAs; otherwise, ordinary dynamics in component supply chains such as lead time normalization and inventory digestion can serve as fodder for securities or other fraud claims.
In Hesai Tech. Co., Ltd. v. United States DOD, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132668 (D.D.C. July 11, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Hesai’s motion for summary judgment and granted the DoD’s cross-motion for summary judgment, upholding Hesai’s designation as a “Chinese military company” under Section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. The Court found that the DoD presented substantial evidence that Hesai satisfies the definition of “military-civil fusion contributor” under Section 1260H(d)(2)(E) because Hesai has facilities in two “military-civil fusion enterprise zones” in China. The Court also found that the DoD provided substantial evidence that LiDAR technology has significant military applications, particularly for autonomous vehicles, which was sufficient to support the finding that Hesai contributes “to the Chinese defense industrial base.” The Court gave heightened deference to the DoD’s determination regarding LiDAR’s military applications given the national security context and the DoD’s technical expertise. Finally, the Court held that Hesai failed to demonstrate prejudice from any due process violation because it had the opportunity to submit evidence rebutting the DoD’s contentions, which was considered by the DoD and included in the administrative record.
Takeaway: This case could have significant implications for supply chains relying on companies susceptible to being listed as a Chinese military company due to any one of the myriad of factors set forth in the act. The Court even notes that American companies that happen to have subsidiaries in military-civil fusion enterprise zones in China could be listed. Companies should assess the risk of key suppliers (or even of themselves) being listed, as this could affect supply chains ostensibly overnight. Note that an appeal has been filed and it is worth monitoring.
In W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Leslie’s Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133119 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s securities fraud complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiff alleged that, in 2020, demand for chlorine-based products increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a fire that destroyed approximately 40% of the country’s chlorine tablet supply. According to the complaint, the defendant increased its inventory of chlorine-based products between 2021 and 2023, communicating to shareholders that this increase was necessary to meet heightened demand. By late 2021, the chlorine supply chain had stabilized, but Leslie’s continued to increase its inventory levels. By 2022, Leslie’s stores allegedly had too much inventory and were refusing shipments, storing products in closets and parking lots, and using third-party storage facilities. Leslie’s then announced disappointing financial results and its stock price dropped. The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to meet the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s pleading requirements because the complaint did not connect the dots between the alleged misstatements and omitted facts specifying what made the statements false or misleading.
Takeaway: Even though this complaint was dismissed, companies should take care to speak openly about seasonality and stocking cycles in order to reduce the risk that logistics timing will be recast as fraud.
In Hanon Sys. Ala. Corp. v. United States, 2025 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 96 (Ct. Intl. Trade July 21, 2025), the U.S. Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained the Department of Commerce’s final determination that aluminum foil completed in Korea using Chinese-origin inputs was circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum foil from China. The Court held that Commerce’s application of the “minor or insignificant” standard to determine whether aluminum foil processing in Korea constituted circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duty orders was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. It also held that Commerce properly analyzed the nature of the production process in Korea and reasonably concluded it was less significant than the production process for Chinese-origin aluminum strip inputs and that Commerce’s value-added analysis was reasonable and properly considered both quantitative and qualitative factors. Additionally, the Court found Commerce permissibly weighed the five statutory factors differently, giving more weight to factors directly related to the production of inquiry merchandise itself. Finally, the Court held Commerce’s determination that patterns of trade indicated circumvention was supported by substantial evidence.
Takeaway: Companies relying on multi-country supply chains to avoid duties should be prepared for regulators to look at the totality of circumstances in making determinations and not just paperwork, meaning companies cannot necessarily rely simply on a bill of materials as evidence. The government is taking care in many cases to dig deeper into actual supply chain operations.
In Coubaly v. Cargill Inc., 144 F.4th 343 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) for lack of standing. The Court found the plaintiffs — eight former Ivorian cocoa farm workers — lacked standing because their complaint failed to clearly define the “venture” in which the defendant cocoa importers allegedly participated. The plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the defendants sourced cocoa from the specific farms where they worked, either directly or through intermediaries. Merely alleging that the farms were in “areas” that “primarily” sold cocoa to certain importers is insufficient to establish causation. The statistic that the defendant importers buy nearly 70% of Ivorian cocoa does not establish that “it is more likely than not” that each plaintiff harvested cocoa for one or more of the defendant importers. The plaintiffs here failed to connect the importers to the specific farms where they worked. The complaint’s vague references to importers’ “staff and agents” in Cote d’Ivoire offered no factual support for agency relationships with the farms where the plaintiffs worked.
Takeaway: Absent evidence of actual control or participation, downstream purchasers face reduced TVPRA exposure but supply chain environmental, social, and governance (ESG) health remains critical.
In Innovative Sols. Int’l, Inc. v. Houlihan Trading Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142094 (W.D. Wash. July 24, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the manufacturer defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial and to remit the plaintiff’s damages award but granted the request to remit the other defendant’s damages award to zero. This is a supply chain warranty, negligence, and fraud claim where the plaintiff purchased chicken through a broker to create food sold exclusively to Trader Joe’s. Trader Joe’s received numerous customer complaints about bone fragments in the food, leading to a product recall and termination of Trader Joe’s business relationship with the plaintiff. The manufacturer defendant’s product fact sheet described the chicken in a way that industry participants understood to mean boneless and skinless, and the manufacturer’s employees testified that the product was supposed to be boneless and skinless. Evidence showed the manufacturer knew of excessive bones in the product but continued to market it as boneless or mostly boneless. The manufacturer defendant failed to log quality inspections during the relevant time frame, contrary to its normal quality assurance (QA) process. The plaintiff was awarded $10.5 million in damages from the manufacturer defendant and $1.5 million from the broker defendant, which was remitted to zero.
Takeaway: This case is worth reading, particularly for those who sell, broker, or buy ingredients/components, as every descriptor companies use can become an enforceable warranty. Downstream buyers can recover on various theories when misdescriptions trigger consumer complaints and retailer terminations; meanwhile, well-drafted back-to-back indemnities and disciplined QA/notice practices may allow intermediaries to shift loss upstream to the party that supplied the nonconforming goods.
In Safron Capital Corp. v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., 2025 Ind. App. LEXIS 247 (Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2025), the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the investors’ second amended complaint, which alleged claims for securities fraud. Due to disruptions from COVID-19, the defendant made an effort to destock and reduce channel inventory by shifting from eight distributors to four and did not disclose these efforts during an offering. Post-offering, at least one analyst noted, “[M]ost surprisingly, while many other manufacturers in the space saw positive stocking effects due to the [COVID-19] pandemic, Elanco disclosed a shift in distribution strategy that caused the company to reduce its level of channel inventory, leading to lower-than-expected companion animal revenues.” Another analyst stated, “Elanco’s Q1 results were heavily impacted by the strategic decision to reduce inventory within distribution channels. The disruptions from COVID-19 across the supply chain led ELAN to accelerate its shift away from distributors, leading to a $60M destocking headwind that mostly impacted the companion business ($206M, -22%).” The Court held that the trial court did not err by dismissing the investors’ second amended complaint because the changes in Elanco’s relationship with distributors were not material and thus did not need to be disclosed in the offering documents.
Takeaway: Even though this case was dismissed, companies should note that when distribution networks are realigned, contemporaneous disclosures about the strategy and impact on inventory may reduce litigation risk.
In Hawkins v. Danaher Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149420 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ securities fraud claims. The Court allowed claims to proceed based on present statements about demand, channel inventory levels, and market conditions because they were material and the plaintiffs adequately alleged both falsity (by showing the defendants omitted important information about increasing inventory and declining demand) and scienter (by showing the defendants had access to contradictory information and knowingly provided false information at least once).
Takeaway: Public statements should account for downstream inventory distortions created by prior supply chain bottlenecks; ignoring overhang can render forecasts arguably misleading.
In Nat’l Consumers League v. Starbucks Corp., 2025 D.C. Super. LEXIS 25 (D.C. Aug. 7, 2025), the Superior Court for the District of Columbia held that the plaintiff plausibly stated a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by alleging that the defendant misled consumers about its commitment to ethical sourcing while contracting with producers engaged in human rights abuses. The Court found that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that the defendant’s alleged actions in contracting with producers engaged in human rights abuses while certifying them as ethical through its C.A.F.E. Practices program is inconsistent with its representations to consumers. The Court further held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that ethical sourcing is an issue consumers care deeply about, making the defendant’s statements about its commitment to ethical practices “material” as required by the CPPA. The Court found that whether the defendant’s statements constitute puffery is not “the rare case” where statements are so obviously puffery that no reasonable consumer would believe them and thus must be resolved by the fact finder.
Takeaway: Washington, D.C., has become somewhat of a jurisdiction of concern for ESG claims under the CPPA. Companies should be aware that upstream supplier conduct requires substantiation; traceability and independent audits are critical to defend ethical‑sourcing narratives, particularly under the CPPA. The Court noted that alleging these claims under the CPPA does not take very much effort — again, making Washington a jurisdiction of concern.
In Bay Valley Foods, LLC v. FFI Grp., LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152024 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2025), the plaintiff purchased approximately 410,000 pounds of dehydrated chopped onions via the following chain: from the upstream producers (in India) through FFI Group LLC then through Kramer Corp. of GA then to Bay Valley. Metal wire fragments (about 1 inch long) were discovered in sealed onion containers and later found in finished salsa produced by Bay Valley. The contamination caused production shutdowns, recalls, testing, and other corrective work. Bay Valley alleged claims based on express warranties (UCC § 2-313), implied warranties of merchantability (UCC § 2-314), and fitness for a particular purpose (UCC § 2-315) against FFI and Kramer and indemnity based on contract terms with FFI. Kramer cross-claimed for indemnity against FFI. The Court considered several summary judgment motions from all parties and issued mixed rulings, and the opinion provides important reasoning on chain of custody, warranty scope, indemnity layers, and burden of proof for contamination.
Takeaway: The case is worth reading for a full understanding of the facts and claims, but for supply chain professionals involved with sourcing, this case reinforces the principle that inputs matter as much as outputs: Few faults remain confined to the first tier. Quality, contamination, and traceability failures upstream can cascade downstream into major losses. Contractual risk allocation (warranties, guaranties, indemnities), operational protocols (incoming inspection, traceability, escalation), and supply chain structuring (flow-down terms, clear chain of liability) are critical controls.
In Corporate Accountability Lab v. Sambazon, Inc., 340 A.3d 1277 (D.C. Aug. 14, 2025), the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, including consideration of the defendant’s alternative arguments that the plaintiff lacks standing under the CPPA and failed to state a claim. The plaintiff is a nonprofit organization that seeks to hold corporations accountable for human and labor rights violations. The defendant is headquartered in California and sells acai products in D.C. The plaintiff alleged the defendant falsely claimed to oversee every step of its supply chain while buying fruit outside its registered network without verifying labor conditions. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that California’s Unfair Competition Law applied and the plaintiff lacked standing under that law. The appeals court applied the restatement factors and found only one factor clearly favored each jurisdiction, with one factor undetermined and one inapplicable at this early stage. Given this uncertainty and the requirement to construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party on a motion to dismiss, the Court could not determine which jurisdiction had greater interest, requiring application of the CPPA.
Takeaway: Companies should know that they may be subject to various jurisdictions’ laws that pertain to ESG and should conduct ongoing risk assessments to determine which laws apply to ensure compliance.
In State Tchrs. Ret. Sys. of Ohio v. Charles River Lab’ys Int’l, Inc., 152 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. Aug. 15, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint regarding Charles River Laboratories’ November 2022 statements, finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged both misleading statements and scienter. The Court found that one executive’s November 2022 comments would leave a reasonable investor with the impression that Charles River’s supply chain did not include suppliers mentioned in or implicated by a DOJ indictment, when in fact one of Charles River’s suppliers was a target of the indictment. Additionally, a shipment of macaques headed to Charles River had been seized two months prior, and Charles River had direct supply relationships with two Vanny Group subsidiaries. The Court concluded that scienter “flows inexorably” from the fact that Charles River told investors its suppliers were not implicated in the federal proceeding when it allegedly knew its supply was coming from entities subject to investigation, seizure, and indictment. The Court found that careful phrasing — stating that Charles River had no “direct” contact with the indicted supplier — “smacks of a cleverly crafted way of leading investors astray.” The Court remanded the case for the district court to consider whether the plaintiff plausibly alleged loss causation and to reconsider the derivative Section 20(a) claim in light of the appellate opinion.
Takeaway: Single‑source or high‑risk inputs heighten disclosure duties, and investigations that threaten availability should be addressed plainly in public statements.
In In re Five Below, Inc., Sec. Litig., No. 24‑3638, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164058 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ securities fraud claims. The Court allowed claims to proceed based on statements about the defendant’s ability to execute on its trend-right marketing strategy and statements about the extent and cause of shrink. The trend-right strategy essentially relied, in part, on sourcing on-trend items quickly. In short, the complaint alleges that the defendant and its executives made misleading statements about “enhancements to the company’s supply chain network” and “improving supply chain conditions” and misattributed shrink to theft.
Takeaway: Companies must take care not to vaguely tout supply chain attributes or conditions in relation to core business strategies unless absolutely certain of the truthfulness of those statements.
In Transamerican Power Poles, Inc. v. Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5305 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2025), the Court of Appeals of California upheld a trial court’s six-figure judgment in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to pay for a shipment of utility poles. The plaintiff had a contract with the defendant to supply steel poles and related products. The plaintiff delivered steel poles to the defendant and submitted invoices. An unknown third party posed as a plaintiff employee and tricked the defendant into transferring $248,885 to a fraudulent bank account. The fraudster used a slightly altered email domain (tappincs.com instead of tappinc.com) and submitted a form changing the plaintiff’s banking information. The defendant’s employees found the request suspicious but processed the payment anyway after an inadequate verification attempt. When fraud was discovered, the defendant was unable to recover the wired funds and refused to pay the plaintiff for the amount that had been paid to the imposter. A computer forensic expert testified that the defendant’s verification efforts fell below the standard of care for such transactions.
Takeaway: This is a cybersecurity case worth noting. Companies should understand that the supply chain is a frequent target for cybersecurity threats and should train employees accordingly.
In City of Hialeah Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22032 (2d Cir. Aug. 27, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ securities fraud claims with respect to three plausibly actionable statements. The plaintiffs alleged that Peloton and its executives made false and misleading statements about consumer demand and inventory levels between February 5, 2021, and January 19, 2022. After experiencing a surge in demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, Peloton allegedly expanded manufacturing capacity and invested in its supply chain. The plaintiffs alleged that, even though by early 2021 demand had waned as vaccines became accessible and gyms reopened, Peloton concealed this decline from investors. On November 4, 2021, Peloton disclosed that 91% of its inventory was unsold and reduced earnings guidance by over $1 billion, causing its stock price to drop 35%. On January 20, 2022, news reports revealed Peloton had halted production to manage excess inventory, causing an additional 24% stock price drop. Regarding one statement about a price reduction on goods, the Court found the statement plausibly false or misleading because confidential witnesses stated the price reduction was a response to excess inventory, contradicting Peloton Executive John Foley’s characterization of it as an offensive market strategy.
Takeaway: Post‑surge inventory normalization is a foreseeable risk and companies should train executives to honestly discuss this. Additionally, disclosures should track actual warehouse capacity, supplier commitments, and demand reality.
In V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 149 F.4th 1312 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) holding that certain executive orders exceeded the president’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and affirmed the grant of declaratory relief, but it vacated the permanent injunction and remanded for reconsideration of the propriety and scope of injunctive relief. The Court held that the CIT had subject matter jurisdiction because the executive orders purported to modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, which are laws providing for tariffs. It further held that the IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate importation” does not include authority to impose the trafficking and reciprocal tariffs at issue. The Court also held that the major questions doctrine applies, requiring clear congressional authorization for presidential actions of vast economic significance, such as these tariffs. Finally, the Court held that the universal injunction must be reconsidered based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA regarding the scope of injunctive relief.
Takeaway: This case still does not provide clarity because the lower court must still reconsider the injunctive relief and because the Supreme Court has granted certiorari. This is worth monitoring for all that depend on global supply chains.
In Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. v. United States, 2025 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 128 (Ct. Intl. Trade Sept. 23, 2025), the CIT vacated U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) finding of forced labor and remanded for further explanation or reconsideration consistent with the opinion. Kingtom is a manufacturer and an exporter of aluminum extrusions in the Dominican Republic. CBP conducted an on-site verification of Kingtom’s facilities in 2021 as part of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. CBP subsequently initiated a forced labor investigation. In December 2024, CBP published a finding that Kingtom was using forced labor to manufacture aluminum products bound for the United States. Kingtom filed a complaint challenging this finding. The Court held that CBP’s finding against Kingtom was arbitrary and capricious because it consisted largely of a barebones recitation of the statute without citing to documents in the administrative record or describing the investigation in detail and that the public administrative record contained only conclusory statements without specific factual allegations supporting the forced labor determination.
Takeaway: Companies should recognize that CBP is required to provide specific factual allegations supporting forced labor findings and they may challenge findings that fail to do that in the CIT.
In GLS Leasco, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190847 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied, among other things, cross-motions for summary judgment pertaining to commercial impracticability. Navistar failed to deliver a number of light trucks to GLS Leasco despite having allegedly promised to deliver them by a certain point in time. Pointing to supply chain complications that impacted its capacity to manufacture, Navistar claimed commercial impracticability. The Court held that, because Navistar arguably knew of the supply chain issues before entering into the supply agreement, the supply chain issues may not have been unforeseeable. The Court held that this was for a jury to decide.
Takeaway: Production and delivery commitments should reflect realistic capacity and should account for supply chain conditions, and contracts should address these risks explicitly in force majeure clauses or otherwise if possible.
In Kachuck Enters. v. Mission Produce, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194158 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims with leave to amend. This is a putative class action brought by California avocado growers concerning alleged misrepresentations made by distributors and suppliers of Mexican-grown avocados that their avocados are sustainably and responsibly sourced. The claims were brought under California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants’ avocados are marketed as sustainable when, in fact, the avocados are grown on deforested land, with stolen water, and without proper permits. These practices allegedly allow the defendants to skirt the true cost of sustainably growing avocados, thereby allowing them to sell their avocados for lower prices than the plaintiffs. The Court held that the plaintiffs lacked statutory standing and reasoned that “reliance is the causal mechanism of fraud” and that the plaintiffs failed to allege reliance by anyone. The Court held that temporal issues undermined causation, as most representations occurred after the plaintiffs’ losses began, and that commingling of avocados prevented consumers from choosing based on sustainability claims. The Court reasoned that the claims were not “tethered to” any adverse impact on competition.
Takeaway: Even though this was dismissed with leave to amend based on lack of standing, it is notable in that it demonstrates even competitors are beginning to employ so-called greenwashing claims and ESG to go after competitors for unfair competition. Companies should note this risk.
In Gimpel v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25123 (2d Cir. Sept. 29, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court and held that the appellants adequately alleged securities fraud claims against the defendant. This case involved allegations of “channel stuffing,” whereby the defendant company allegedly attempted to stem the tide of flagging demand by incenting distributors to take on (or strong-arming them into taking on) more inventory than usual. The defendant allegedly offered distributors concessions including cash incentives, discounts, extended payment terms, and rights to return product. Allegedly, many of these were side deals or otherwise unknown incentives being offered and not adequately tracked and accounted for, leading executives to not know and not publicly disclose them. The Court held that attributing financial success to consumer demand without disclosing reliance on channel stuffing constituted actionable “half-truths” under Rule 10b-5(b). The Court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter and loss causation by showing stock price declines following the defendant’s negative disclosures.
Takeaway: Companies should track sell-in versus sell-through realities and the promotional levers used to move inventory through the channel and mirror those in public statements. Lack of supply chain and inventory oversight can lead to inadvertent misstatements that increase the risk of securities fraud claims.
On September 16, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced a public consultation process in advance of the joint review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). In particular, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is seeking public comments and recommendations on the USMCA with regard to compliance concerns, operation, implementation, and effectiveness. The joint review of the USMCA is scheduled for July 1, 2026. [https://ustr.gov/] Those wishing to comment are directed to submit written comments at https://comments.ustr.gov/s/ using the docket titled “Request for Comments on the Operation of the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada” (docket number USTR-2025-0004). Public comments are due by 11:59 p.m. EST on November 3. Further, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is holding a public hearing at the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 17, at 10 a.m. EST. Requests to appear at this hearing are due with the public comments by November 3 and must include a summary of anticipated testimony. [https://www.govinfo.gov/]
President Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10947, “Adjusting Imports of Aluminum and Steel Into the United States,” on June 3. Under the proclamation, the Section 232 tariffs on aluminum articles, steel articles, and their derivative articles increased from 25% ad valorem to 50% ad valorem. The proclamation’s tariff increases aim to “more effectively counter foreign countries that continue to offload low-priced, excess steel and aluminum in the United States market and thereby undercut the competitiveness of the United States steel and aluminum industries.” [https://www.whitehouse.gov/]
Following Proclamation 10947, the Department of Commerce added over 400 product categories to the list of aluminum and steel “derivative articles” subject to the 50% ad valorem tariffs. Covered products include a range of items, such as cranes, wind turbines, furniture, and railcars. [https://www.bis.gov/] Further information on the product categories can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/BIS-2025-0023/document.
H.R. 4183, the Federal Maritime Commission Reauthorization Act of 2025, was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 26. [https://www.congress.gov/] If enacted, H.R. 4183 would authorize the appropriation of increased funding for 2026 through 2029. Additionally, the bill would alter or establish additional committees within the Federal Maritime Commission, such as the National Port Advisory Committee and the National Ocean Carrier Advisory Committee. [https://www.congress.gov/] This legislation seeks to combat “unfair practices of foreign-flagged ocean carriers,” with the goal of strengthening American shippers and carriers. [https://transportation.house.gov/]
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4, is a reconciliation law with multiple supply chain levers: (i) defense industrial base and munitions resiliency funding; (ii) edits to advanced manufacturing/critical minerals credits (phasing out by 2034 for most minerals; tighter “foreign entity” limits); (iii) tweaks to domestic content eligibility; and (iv) rescission of unobligated Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund balances — affecting 5G/open radio access network vendor ecosystems. Moving forward, companies should reassess their tax credit qualifications in energy/electric vehicle projects and recheck their telecom supply diversification assumptions. [https://www.govtrack.us/]
The Senate passed S.257 on June 26; the House companion, H.R.2444, passed on April 28 and sat on the Senate calendar through Q3. If it’s enacted, Commerce’s International Trade Administration must stand up a Supply Chain Resilience Working Group, conduct mapping/modeling, and deliver a strategy/report within a year. These developments should be useful for federal coordination and industry engagement. [https://www.steptoe-johnson.com/]
On July 7, the administration extended the temporary suspension/adjustment of reciprocal tariff rates, continuing a uniform 10% add-on for most trading partners (China was handled separately) to keep negotiation windows open and reduce near-term volatility for importers. The order also pauses specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States headings tied to the program through August 1. [https://www.whitehouse.gov/]
On July 31, the White House issued a follow-on order that (i) resets partner-specific add-ons in Annex I (e.g., a rule for EU goods that effectively increases items with <15% Column 1 duties up to 15%), (ii) restores a 10% universal add-on for non-listed partners seven days after the order, and (iii) adds an extra 40% duty on goods found by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to be transshipped to evade the reciprocal tariffs — backed by the semiannual publication of circumvention hubs/facilities. This order will result in higher landed-cost risks for multi-country routings and an increased due diligence burden on suppliers and forwarders. [https://www.whitehouse.gov/]
The U.S. Trade Representative’s shipbuilding/maritime/logistics Section 301 track moved from proposal (June 2025) toward additional modifications later in the year; while the October notice posts after Q3, the docket signals sustained 2025 scrutiny of China-linked logistics and maritime inputs that many OEMs depend on. Companies can expect spillovers into marine equipment, port tech, and logistics software sourcing. [https://ustr.gov/trade-topics/]
The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee approved proposals to limit sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements for companies under both the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/] The Legal Affairs Committee vote comes after EU member states adopted the Council of the European Union’s omnibus proposal aimed at simplifying sustainability directives in late June 2025. The effect is an increase in CSDDD thresholds from 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover to more than 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in net turnover. [https://www.steptoe-johnson.com/] The Legal Affairs Committee has requested that the European Parliament start negotiations on final requirements at the next plenary session. [https://www.reuters.com/]
Sponsored Event Sponsored Event Sponsored Event Sponsored EventCopyright © 2025 Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
