Customs Given Time to Figure It Out

A judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade says tariff refunds will have to wait until the enormity of the task is worked out.

On March 4, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard K. Eaton ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA.) The government said immediate compliance was not possible because some 53 million entries would need refunds.

On March 6, Judge Eaton amended his order, saying the refund obligation stands but setting no firm deadline. CBP must establish a process to complete the refunds which it hopes to have in place by the end of April.

Costco v Shopper and Section 122 Tariffs Challenged

Costco faces a potential class-action lawsuit over costs passed to shoppers from now-invalid tariffs. On March 11, a Costco member in Illinois filed the suit, seeking refunds to shoppers. While Costco is already suing to recover its own tariff fees, and has pledged to pass those savings along, this new legal action specifically seeks class-action status and direct compensation for Costco members.

Another lawsuit takes aim at replacement tariffs imposed last month by the White House. Twenty-four states are suing the Trump administration over the new 10% global tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Last month, after the Supreme Court ruled IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional, the White House announced it would apply a new tariff via the Trade Act. This month, a coalition of 24 states led by California, Oregon, Arizona, and New York filed suit against the President, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection asserting that the Trade Act only authorizes tariffs to address serious payment deficits and not trade imbalances.

SNAP Waivers Face Lawsuits

Four more states have been granted Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) waivers while five other states face a challenge over the legality of their waivers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been issuing waivers that allow states to restrict the use of SNAP benefits for certain items that vary by state but often include soda, candy, and energy drinks. 

This month, the USDA approved waivers for Kansas, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming, bringing the total to 22 states allowed to create their own SNAP food restrictions. The White House is encouraging states to apply for waivers as part of an effort to promote better nutrition. 

The USDA also announced that it will soon issue a final rule on the Stocking Standards used to guide retailers who accept SNAP benefits. The updated Standards will raise the minimum requirements for staple foods for retailers participating in the SNAP program.

On March 11, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice filed suit in federal court in the District of Columbia, accusing the government of destabilizing food access for SNAP participants and redefining allowable foods without established methodology or input from affected communities, including retailers. The plaintiffs say the USDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not providing for public comment. The USDA says the waivers are permitted under a pilot program testing the impact of foods on health and nutrition. The states named in the suit are Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. 

The following map is available on the USDA website with links and a graph organizing the restrictions by state. 

Advertising & Ingredients Face Oversight, Enforcement

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is cracking down on ingredients used in compounded GLP-1 medications. These compounded versions of popular weight loss drugs are not FDA approved and, the agency says, are the subject of deceptive advertising.

The move follows broader efforts to regulate the expanding market amid drug shortages. On February 6, The FDA announced its intent to take steps to restrict active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) used in compounded GLP-1 medications marketed directed to consumers.

The FDA has been stepping up enforcement of all direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Last September, the agency said it would block deceptive ads and take steps to close a loophole from 1997 that it says allows ads to conceal critical safety risks.

Last September, the FDA launched a “Green List” of foreign facilities evaluated to identify APIs that have met FDA requirements, aiming to discourage poor-quality and counterfeit GLP-1s from being imported.

Some states, including California, have their own rules for compounded products. Two bills proposed in the House would require clearer labeling of compounded medications and greater oversight of production, including limiting compounding to declared drug shortages.

This month, the government launched its new website, TrumpRX, to help patients find lower-cost medications, including some GLP-1s.

30-Month Extension for FSMA Enforcement

The compliance date for The Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) has been extended by 30 months. The rule, finalized in 2022, was set to take effect on Jan. 20. On February 19, it was announced that the FDA has been directed not to enforce the rule prior to July 20, 2028. 

The rule (implementing Section 204 d of FSMA) establishes recordkeeping requirements for certain foods to allow faster responses to foodborne-illness outbreaks. Resources are available on the FDA website.

FDA Plans Public Meeting on Supplement Ingredients

The Office of Dietary Supplement Programs (ODSP) will hold an in-person and virtual public meeting on March 27 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in College Park, Maryland, to discuss methodologies used in dietary supplements and how scientific advances should inform definitions and regulation. Presentations will include ingredient categories and definitions of dietary supplements. Public comments will be accepted until April 27, 2026

South Dakota Says, ‘Not Here’ With a 5-Year Ban

On March 11, South Dakota’s Governor Larry Rhoden signed a five-year moratorium on all lab-grown meat. South Dakota becomes the fifth state to ban cell-cultured protein products, although the first to make it a temporary moratorium rather than a permanent ban.  Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas ban both the sale and production of cell-grown “meat” products. Nebraska prevents state agencies from purchasing them and Georgia has strict labeling guidelines.

For a chart that organizes the restrictions by state visit the National Agricultural Law Center webpage.

Findings from 5-Year Study Announced

New findings on E. coli were released this month by the FDA. The agency and its partners in western California concluded a five-year study into the prevalence, resistance, and drivers of E-coli, a pathogen linked to produce-associated outbreaks in 2018 and 2020.

The California Longitudinal Study provides insight into the presence of E. coli, the wildlife and livestock spreading the bacteria, the prevalence of the pathogen and how weather and climate affect its viability. The study did not isolate the strain linked to the 2018 and 2020 outbreaks.

Notable findings include that E. coli can survive for extended periods in dried fecal material and that reservoirs facilitate its movement across the region. Sampling has concluded, but researchers continue analyzing results, including studying data on Salmonella and Campylobacter. Additional findings are expected.

New EPR Law Seeks Safer Disposal

Oregon’s latest proposed Environmental Producer Regulation addresses battery disposal in order to prevent fires caused by the products in household trash. House Bill 4144 would require producers of batteries and battery-powered items to join a responsibility organization.

If passed, the EPR would start July 1, 2029. The bill cleared the state Senate on March 5 and awaits the governor’s signature. Fourteen other states have laws addressing the prevention of battery-related fires.

The EPR lawsuit filed by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) has a trial date set for July 13, 2026. The NAW argues that the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act violates the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause by placing excessive burdens on interstate commerce.