Trade Cases
AIIS Expects Section 232 Appeals to Reach Supreme Court
Written by Tim Triplett
April 4, 2019
The American Institute for International Steel has appealed its case against President Trump’s Section 232 tariffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals. “This appeal is an important element of our overall legal strategy. As we noted when we started this journey nine months ago, we strongly believe that in the end this matter will be settled by the Supreme Court,” said AIIS Chairman John Foster in an email to supporters April 2 seeking donations to help cover legal costs.
AIIS, which represents steel importers and traders among others in the supply chain, lost the first step in its legal challenge of the tariffs when the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled March 25 that the Trump administration’s use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 is constitutional based on a decades-old Supreme Court precedent known as Algonquin. AIIS contends that Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to make the laws by effectively giving the president the power to impose whatever trade barriers he chooses in the name of national security.
“The USCIT ruling leaves in place all existing steel tariffs imposed under Section 232, and, of course, the significant harm to the steel supply chain and the American economy the tariffs have created,” Foster said in the email. “The ruling also continues the possibility that current tariffs could be increased at any time, and that new tariffs could be imposed on autos and auto parts, and possibly on other products as well.”
AIIS interpreted comments in the USCIT ruling as a virtual invitation to appeal the decision, as they acknowledged the case raises profound questions regarding the limits of delegation. Stated one of the three judges: “What we have come to learn is that Section 232 provides virtually unbridled discretion to the President with respect to the power over trade that is reserved by the Constitution to Congress. Nor does the statute require congressional approval of any presidential actions that fall within its scope. In short, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the statute has permitted the transfer of power to the President in violation of the separation of powers. In the end, I conclude that, as my colleagues hold, we are bound by Algonquin…I respectfully suggest, however, that the fullness of time can inform understanding that may not have been available more than forty years ago…If the delegation permitted by Section 232, as now revealed, does not constitute excessive delegation in violation of the Constitution, what would?”
AIIS anticipates what could become a lengthy legal battle in its appeal for donations. “There is no reason to believe that the damaging, trade-distorting [Section] 232 tariffs will go away anytime soon,” Foster said.
Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest in Trade Cases
China challenges Canada’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, EVs
China is challenging Canada’s decision to put tariffs on imports of Chinese steel, aluminum, and electric vehicles.
Leibowitz: Harris, Trump don’t talk much about steel and trade – because they (mostly) agree
By most accounts, the issues that are most important for voters in this election are the economy, immigration, and abortion. International trade policy plays a key role in at least two of those three (the economy and immigration). Both presidential candidates recognize that trade and tariffs are an important focus. And “America first” is a rallying point for both candidates.
Commerce launches investigation into imports of coated flat-rolled steel
On Thursday, the Department of Commerce announced it would initiate investigations into coated steel imports from ten countries.
Op-Ed: Despite misclassification games, import data supports surge of Mexican conduit
Barry Zekelman, chairman and CEO of Zekelman Industries, says the import data unquestionably supports the fact that imports of Mexican conduit have been surging into the US market.
Leibowitz: The Mexican steel import “surge”—and what to do about it
US presidential campaigns frequently sport an “air of unreality.” No more so than the 2024 campaign, where superlatives fly around like mosquitos. Steel trade has been a feature of political discourse for at least half a century now. Just last week, it proceeded to a new level of “unreality.” Four senators - Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) - wrote a “bipartisan” letter attacking Mexican exports of steel to the United States. They framed it as a “surge” in US steel imports from Mexico. To address this “surge,” the Senators urge the imposition of 25% tariffs on all steel imports from Mexico.