Trade Cases

Leibowitz on Trade: How AIIS Lawsuit May Play Out
Written by Tim Triplett
July 22, 2018
Lewis Leibowitz, trade attorney and contributor to Steel Market Update, offers the following commentary on the latest developments in Washington:
The tariff story is getting broader and more complex. I will focus today on the lawsuit filed by the American Institute for International Steel (AIIS) and two of its members challenging the constitutionality of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Last Thursday, the plaintiffs filed a motion for “summary judgment” in the case. In legal speak, summary judgment means that the material facts (the facts that matter) are not in dispute and the party filing the motion is entitled to win the case on the law.
Plaintiffs argue that Section 232 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Executive Branch because it does not articulate meaningful standards for deciding whether imports threaten to impair national security or what remedies are appropriate. This promises to be an interesting argument. The government has not responded to these arguments. However, the government did file a response to plaintiffs’ request to assign three judges to hear the constitutional arguments in the case. It appears that the decision whether to assign the case to a three-judge court is in the discretion of the Chief Judge of the court. He should decide soon whether the case warrants assignment to a three-judge court. If he does, that could be a signal that the constitutional arguments are relatively serious, or at least that they demand an unusual degree of attention.
Suppose that the Court of International Trade were to decide, either on constitutional grounds or narrower grounds, against the presidential proclamation imposing steel tariffs (I limit this to steel because the aluminum proclamation is not a subject of this case). Could the court enjoin the imposition of tariffs? It could, but a lot has to happen before that is anything like probable. If the tariffs were enjoined, what might the president do?
- He could appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court. As the plaintiffs acknowledge, the Court has not struck down a statute on delegation grounds since 1935 (the cases striking down the New Deal National Recovery Act). An injunction against the steel tariffs would be controversial, to be sure. However, unlike the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, the Court of International Trade could, in theory, enjoin the tariffs if the Court concluded that it was unlawful. A remand of the determination of the president or of the secretary of commerce that supports it would not be required.
- He could comply with the injunction and remove the tariffs.
- If so, it is likely that something else will be considered to take its place. Perhaps a safeguard action would be instituted to replace it; but that investigation would have very different criteria and provide less discretion than Section 232. He also could ask the U.S. Trade Representative to initiate a Section 301 investigation; this is the statute under which the China tariffs have been imposed. The USTR has not announced any Section 301 tariffs on countries other than China, but he could.
In short, this case could make a major change in trade policy possible. Let’s see what happens.
Lewis Leibowitz
The Law Office of Lewis E. Leibowitz
1400 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 776-1142
Fax: (202) 861-2924
Cell: (202) 250-1551

Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest in Trade Cases

Price on Trade: IEEPA tariffs head to the Supreme Court, DOJ ramps up trade enforcement
International trade law and policy remain a hot topic in Washington and beyond this week. We are paying special attention to the ongoing litigation of the president’s tariff policies and the administration’s efforts to heighten trade enforcement.

Mexico considers stiff tariffs for steel, autos, and other imports
Mexico is considering imposing steep tariffs on imports of steel, automobiles, and over 1,400 other products. Its target? Countries with which it does not have free trade agreements, mainly China, India, Thailand, and other South Asian nations.

Leibowitz: With ‘reciprocal’ tariffs struck down again in court, what happens next?
President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) were struck down again, this time on Aug. 29 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The legal and policy mess continues, with the next stop being the US Supreme Court.

Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.

ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.