The case, which follows an unusual procedure that could put the final decision about government intervention, and any remedy, directly in President Trump’s hands, could become one of the first major trade decisions of his administration. It also could determine how and whether the American solar industry can continue to grow.

At issue is whether the financial woes of Suniva and its co-petitioner, SolarWorld Americas, are a result of unfair competition from Chinese companies benefiting from state subsidies, or of their own business practices. And though the sharp drops in the cost of panels have made it difficult for domestic manufacturers to compete, they have also fueled a boom in solar development throughout the country, providing a lift to an industry that says it now has more than 250,000 jobs.

Further complicating matters is that Suniva, once lauded on the White House blog as “an American success story” during the Obama administration but now in bankruptcy, is majority-owned by a Chinese company that now disavows the case.

With roots in a protracted trade war between the United States and China that started in 2011, the dispute centers on crystalline silicon cells, the major electricity-producing components, as well as the modules, or panels, into which they are assembled. SolarWorld Americas, a subsidiary of a now-bankrupt German panel maker, had filed a trade complaint along with six other domestic solar manufacturers that accused their Chinese counterparts of using unfair government subsidies to finance their operations and then selling their merchandise for less than the cost of manufacturing and shipping it.

SolarWorld won the case, as well as a second that included Taiwan, where Chinese manufacturers had turned for cells to avoid anticipated tariffs. But that, the petitioners argue, set off a global race to the bottom on price, as manufacturers opened factories in other low-cost countries, leading to the current case. This time, the companies are seeking blanket global protections to keep manufacturers from circumventing tariffs aimed at specific countries by expanding elsewhere in what the petition referred to as a game of Whac-a-Mole.