The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Jan. 17 in a pair of cases contesting the Chevron doctrine, under which deference is afforded to executive agencies in interpreting federal laws where there is ambiguity. Many of the justices appeared primed to strike down the doctrine, including Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, who either criticized its use or questioned its current relevancy and impact (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Sup. Ct. # 22-451) (Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce, Sup. Ct. # 22-1219).
Solar panel exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to rehear their case on President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
Plaintiffs in the massive ongoing Section 301 litigation "ignore" the president's role in imposing the China tariffs, the U.S. said last week, arguing that the thousands of companies leading the case would have the court impose an improper standard of review (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The government's claim that a group of Canadian softwood lumber exporters shouldn't be able to intervene in an antidumping duty case is based on "an unreasonably narrow, absurd, and constitutionally problematic reading of" the statute on parties entitled to participate in civil actions, the exporters argued (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
A September Court of International Trade decision is instructive in how to consider the Commerce Department's methodology for assessing de facto specificity regarding Quebec's On-The-Job-Training tax credit in a countervailing duty proceeding, exporter Marmen Energy Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Government of Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham questioned both the position of the government and affected domestic producers in a Dec. 5 oral argument on whether CBP properly denied payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).
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 Ditches Suit on Section 232 'Derivative' Duties After High Court Rejection in Separate Case
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).