The United States is a free country, allowing most goods to enter and leave the country for trading. The U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has authority over international trading and compliance of import regulation. American customs law is composed primarily of the U.S. Customs Duties Code (Title 19 of the U.S. Code), tariff schedule, proposed legislation, CBP decisions, CBP rulings, judicial decisions, and treaties and international agreements. Administrative materials also comprise customs law. There are other federal agencies that regulate imports, such as the Environmental Protection Agency for automobiles, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for wines.

The CBP is strict in the implementation of custom laws. The government imposes about 3% of the value of the imported good, although the tariff can reach as high as 81% on certain goods. The federal government has a list on items that cannot be brought inside the United States. These products include endangered wildlife and items made from endangered wildlife, such as ivory from elephants and rhinoceros and feathers from wild birds. Individuals found to have been carrying these items will be fined or imprisoned, depending on the item brought in. The law, however, provides for exceptions. In the case of ivory, an individual may bring back an object made of ivory if the item is antique, which means the item is at least 100 years old. There must be proper documentation to prove that such item is antique. Without the proper documentation, the item cannot get inside the United States and the bringer may be subjected to fines or imprisonment. The government also has a list of "duty-free" items, which means these products are exempt for tax payments. In addition, American residents traveling abroad can freely import cigarettes, cigar and alcoholic beverages if the total value of these items do not exceed a certain amount.

Importation of prohibited or contraband goods is a criminal offense in the United States. The most common violations of customs are law: false declarations, exporting violations, importing violations, and smuggling. False declarations usually occur following a trip abroad. All items, including gifts, brought in by residents and travelers from outside the United States must be declared. One item missed out in the declaration can be considered misrepresentation or false declaration and can be considered a violation of custom laws. Exporting and importing require licenses obtained from the appropriate government agency. Without the proper license, an individual or a corporation cannot export or import. Smuggling occurs when somebody brings to the United States an item that is considered prohibited.

The law punishes violations of customs law with a fine that can range from a thousand dollars to a million dollars and prison time of 10 years per offense. When faced with a customs law violation, it is best to seek the help of an expert customs law attorney. Customs violations is a serious offense with grave consequences. A defense attorney with knowledge on customs law should best argue for persons charged with customs law violations.

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that, when inhaled over a long period of time, results to fatal diseases. The most common asbestos-related disease is lung cancer, followed by mesothelioma. People working in heavy industries, such as manufacturing, and seafarers, have the highest risk of being exposed to huge amounts of asbestos and being diagnosed with, or dying from, mesothelioma. In some cases, because asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, even people who are not employed in industries using asbestos but are living in asbestos-rich areas become victims to these fatal diseases. There is also an increasing number of so-called "take-home" cases or secondary exposure cases where wives or other family members are diagnosed with mesothelioma through continuous exposure to asbestos when washing their husbands' or family members' work clothes.

In the United States, asbestos litigation, particularly involving mesothelioma cases, shows no sign of slowing down as mesothelioma victims increasingly go to court, rather than settle, to litigate their claims for damages. In addition, asbestos litigation in the United States continue to develop as new case precedents lead to new types of plaintiffs and new types of asbestos exposure. Moreover, while asbestos-related personal injury claims against companies who used asbestos in their products are stabilizing, limitations imposed on the filing of claims against trust funds and the bankruptcy filings of numerous companies have induced plaintiffs to sue peripheral defendants. Furthermore, asbestos litigation is not limited to personal injuries arising from lung cancer or mesothelioma. Asbestos litigation arising from malignancies are also gaining popularity in state courts.

One of the complications in mesothelioma litigation is the variation of laws and rules from state to state. Courts constantly revise their trial docket to ease up the burgeoning of asbestos cases. Some courts make it easier for plaintiffs' firms to file cases while other courts don't. Other courts are also found to be more kind to plaintiffs, while other courts to defendants. Moreover, because of the huge number of asbestos litigation pending in different states, courts reach different conclusions that may or may not be applicable to another state. Even the determination of jurisdiction pose difficulty that may need the expertise of an attorney who is a specialist in asbestos litigation.

Discovery in asbestos cases is known to be exhaustive as plaintiffs need to prove they have been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their occupation, and that their employers used asbestos-containing materials in their products or premises. Discovery is costly and so time-consuming that most mesothelioma victims die before their cases are concluded. One of the persistent issues presented in asbestos cases is whether companies owed a duty to warn its employees of the danger of asbestos contained in their products. Decisions on this question vary from state to state, and from court to court, adding more difficulty to the already-complex litigation. Another persistent issue presented in asbestos cases is the extent of a company's liability as to a person's personal injury. There are cases when a jury determines that only one company is liable, while there are cases when a jury determines that many companies are liable. Insurance coverage disputes further muddles asbestos litigation, bringing in more parties, and needing more expertise, to the case.