Statutory Interpretation

A case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products shouldn't be stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of the Chevron deference doctrine, the government told the high court in a Nov. 27 brief. Replying to exporter Oman Fasteners' petition for a writ of certiorari, DOJ said the case involving the review of Chevron, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, will not affect the present dispute because Loper Bright doesn't involve "challenges to actions taken by the President" (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Sup. Ct. # 23-432).

The U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral argument Jan. 17 in a pivotal case on the Chevron deference principle. Under Chevron, agencies' interpretation of statutes are approved with minimal oversight should the statute prove ambiguous. U.S. trade agencies often champion the doctrine in their enforcement of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. The Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in November 2022 to hear a case on Chevron from a group of commercial fishing companies. Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized Chevron deference in a November 2022 dissenting opinion (see 2211080058) (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, Sup. Ct. # 22-451).

Importer Tempo Global Resources filed a stipulation of dismissal on Nov. 6 in its case on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products, after the Supreme Court declined to hear another case challenging the same presidential action. The Court of International Trade stayed Tempo Global's case in August pending the high court's resolution of the separate Section 232 case, PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. (see 2308080024). The Supreme Court rejected PrimeSource's request for review at the end of October, despite the company's claims that the case could allow the court to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive branch (see 2310300020) (Tempo Global Resources v. United States, CIT # 20-00066).

The U.S. Supreme Court denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for writ of certiorari in a case on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products. PrimeSource argued that the president's decision to extend the duties onto these goods was unlawful since it was made beyond procedural time limits laid out in the statute (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-69).

The Supreme Court hasn't decided a case using its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council since 2016, prompting the question not of whether it should be overruled but whether the high court "should let lower courts and citizens in on the news," commercial fishing companies led by Loper Bright Enterprises argued. Filing a reply brief in a key case on Chevron, which grants deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, the fishing companies said the decision "has already proven itself unworkable, and its corrosive effects on our separation of powers have lingered long enough" (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, Sup. Ct. # 22-451).

The Supreme Court should take up a case on whether President Donald Trump lawfully expanded Section 232 steel and aluminum duties to cover "derivative" products to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive, petitioner PrimeSource Building Products argued. Filing a brief in response to the government's defense, PrimeSource claimed that its case gives the court a chance to "do something about" the government's position that the executive can exercise both Congress' legislative powers and the judiciary's "interpretive responsibilities" (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Sup. Ct. # 23-69).

The Court of International Trade's "unique and unprecedented interpretation" of an "other" provision in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule comes from a "false premise" that would greatly expand its scope throughout the HTS, importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods argued in its Sept. 27 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Seeking its preferred classification of frozen fruit mixtures, the importer said the trade court's reading would also "greatly limit operation of the provisions in [General Rules of Interpretation] 3(b) and (c) which are designed to classify mixtures" (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).

The government’s position in a case regarding substitution unused merchandise drawback for aircraft parts would lead to "absurd results" if upheld, presenting a "significant risk of manipulation or unintended results" arising from changes in statistical language in the tariff schedule if the court agrees with DOJ's interpretation of the drawback statute, importer Spirit Aerosystems said in an Aug. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).

The Court of International Trade in a July 13 opinion dismissed a lawsuit from PrimeSource Building Products against President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 national security tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products pursuant to the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission prematurely carried out the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from Taiwan and China, U.S. company Archroma U.S. argued in its June 26 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Archroma U.S., Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00354).