1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Action Required for Importers Impacted by COVID-19

Action Required for Importers Impacted by COVID-19

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.24.20

USTR Seeks Comments on Removal of Tariffs on Certain Imports from China that Assist the U.S. Coronavirus Response

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking comments to remove Section 301 tariffs on certain imports from China that could help support the United States COVID-19 response. The USTR recently granted approximately 200 exclusions from the tariffs on China that covered personal protective equipment products, including medical masks, examination gloves, antiseptic wipes, and other medical-care related items, as a response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The March 20, 2020, notice is seeking comments on whether a medical-care product is “needed to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak.” The Comment window will be open until at least June 25, 2020, and may be extended. 

Each comment specifically must identify the particular product of concern and explain precisely how the product relates to the response to the COVID-19 outbreak. This notice does not replace the current ongoing exclusion process. Comments may be submitted until June 25, 2020 (or until a later date if needed). However, to facilitate timely consideration, interested parties should submit comments as soon as possible.


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights