UFLPA Slave Labor Ruling Vs Ninestar Put on Ice Due to US Government Shutdown.

toner · 2025-10-15T11:23:58-04:00

Court Pauses Government Filing in Ninestar Case Amid Federal Shutdown By Tonernews.com | October 15, 2025. In the closely watched case of Ninestar Corporation v. United States, a federal judge has granted a temporary stay of the government's filing deadline, citing the ongoing federal government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025. In a paperless order entered on October 3, Judge Geoffrey Goell granted the Department of Justice’s unopposed motion to stay its obligation to answer the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The DOJ cited the lapse in congressional appropriations, which has rendered both the DOJ and the agency responsible for the underlying administrative action unable to perform normal litigation functions. “The date for the Government’s answer to the amended complaint is stayed until such time as Congress has restored appropriations to the Department of Justice and the agency responsible for the underlying determination is able to continue its work,” the court stated. The court ordered that, no later than five days after Congress appropriates funds, the Government must file a joint status report with the plaintiff proposing a revised deadline for its answer. Background: The Ninestar Litigation The litigation stems from the U.S. Government’s June 2023 enforcement action against Ninestar Corporation, a leading Chinese manufacturer of printer components and consumables. The company and eight of its subsidiaries were added to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) entity list under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), effectively banning their goods from entering the U.S. market. U.S. authorities alleged that Ninestar engaged in business practices involving the use of forced labor from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, a violation of federal law and international human rights norms. Ninestar denies the allegations and is seeking to overturn the enforcement action, alleging that the government’s determination was arbitrary and capricious, violated due process, and lacked a factual basis. The company contends that the listing has inflicted severe commercial harm and reputational damage, including loss of access to the U.S. market and exclusion from federal procurement. Shutdown Effects on Enforcement Cases The stay order in Ninestar is one of many procedural delays now rippling across the federal judiciary as the shutdown stretches into its second week. With large portions of the DOJ’s civil division and agency counsel furloughed or operating under contingency plans, most civil enforcement and regulatory defense cases are being paused unless they involve imminent deadlines, urgent injunctions, or matters of public safety. The court’s order in this case is narrowly tailored, automatically reactivating the government's obligations upon restoration of funding. However, the pause introduces further uncertainty into a case already complicated by cross-border commercial tensions, statutory interpretation of the UFLPA, and evolving federal enforcement priorities. Why This Case Matters The Ninestar case is one of the first direct legal challenges to the UFLPA entity listing process. As such, it may test the scope of executive authority under the UFLPA and the standards of evidence and procedural protections afforded to companies facing enforcement. Depending on how the court rules on standing, jurisdiction, and the merits, this case could establish precedent for how the U.S. government justifies forced labor designations — and how foreign companies can respond. It also underscores the risks companies face in global supply chain compliance, particularly as the U.S. government continues to scrutinize links to Xinjiang through customs enforcement, sanctions, and trade bans. Next Steps At present, all deadlines in the case remain stayed. Once Congress passes a budget or continuing resolution, the parties will be required to submit a joint status report within five days, proposing a new schedule for the government’s answer. Observers in the trade, compliance, and human rights law communities will be watching closely, as the case may offer the first substantive judicial review of enforcement actions taken under the UFLPA. For continued updates on the Ninestar litigation and UFLPA enforcement, subscribe to our newsletter contact us at tonernews@gmail.com.

Tonernews.com, October 15, 2025. USA

This topic is empty.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

Author

Posts
#698868

toner
Keymaster

Court Pauses Government Filing in Ninestar Case Amid Federal Shutdown
By Tonernews.com | October 15, 2025. In the closely watched case of Ninestar Corporation v. United States, a federal judge has granted a temporary stay of the government’s filing deadline, citing the ongoing federal government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025.

In a paperless order entered on October 3, Judge Geoffrey Goell granted the Department of Justice’s unopposed motion to stay its obligation to answer the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The DOJ cited the lapse in congressional appropriations, which has rendered both the DOJ and the agency responsible for the underlying administrative action unable to perform normal litigation functions. “The date for the Government’s answer to the amended complaint is stayed until such time as Congress has restored appropriations to the Department of Justice and the agency responsible for the underlying determination is able to continue its work,” the court stated. The court ordered that, no later than five days after Congress appropriates funds, the Government must file a joint status report with the plaintiff proposing a revised deadline for its answer.

Background: The Ninestar Litigation

The litigation stems from the U.S. Government’s June 2023 enforcement action against Ninestar Corporation, a leading Chinese manufacturer of printer components and consumables. The company and eight of its subsidiaries were added to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) entity list under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), effectively banning their goods from entering the U.S. market. U.S. authorities alleged that Ninestar engaged in business practices involving the use of forced labor from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, a violation of federal law and international human rights norms. Ninestar denies the allegations and is seeking to overturn the enforcement action, alleging that the government’s determination was arbitrary and capricious, violated due process, and lacked a factual basis. The company contends that the listing has inflicted severe commercial harm and reputational damage, including loss of access to the U.S. market and exclusion from federal procurement.

Shutdown Effects on Enforcement Cases

The stay order in Ninestar is one of many procedural delays now rippling across the federal judiciary as the shutdown stretches into its second week. With large portions of the DOJ’s civil division and agency counsel furloughed or operating under contingency plans, most civil enforcement and regulatory defense cases are being paused unless they involve imminent deadlines, urgent injunctions, or matters of public safety. The court’s order in this case is narrowly tailored, automatically reactivating the government’s obligations upon restoration of funding. However, the pause introduces further uncertainty into a case already complicated by cross-border commercial tensions, statutory interpretation of the UFLPA, and evolving federal enforcement priorities.

Why This Case Matters

The Ninestar case is one of the first direct legal challenges to the UFLPA entity listing process. As such, it may test the scope of executive authority under the UFLPA and the standards of evidence and procedural protections afforded to companies facing enforcement. Depending on how the court rules on standing, jurisdiction, and the merits, this case could establish precedent for how the U.S. government justifies forced labor designations — and how foreign companies can respond. It also underscores the risks companies face in global supply chain compliance, particularly as the U.S. government continues to scrutinize links to Xinjiang through customs enforcement, sanctions, and trade bans.

Next Steps

At present, all deadlines in the case remain stayed. Once Congress passes a budget or continuing resolution, the parties will be required to submit a joint status report within five days, proposing a new schedule for the government’s answer. Observers in the trade, compliance, and human rights law communities will be watching closely, as the case may offer the first substantive judicial review of enforcement actions taken under the UFLPA. For continued updates on the Ninestar litigation and UFLPA enforcement, subscribe to our newsletter contact us at tonernews@gmail.com.
Author

October 15, 2025 at 11:23 AM

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty, or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the content on our site.