Trade Cases
Leibowitz on Trade: Supreme Court Declines Case Challenging Section 232—For Now
Written by Lewis Leibowitz
June 25, 2019
Trade attorney and Steel Market Update contributor Lewis Leibowitz offers the following update on events in Washington:
The lawsuit filed almost exactly one year ago challenging Section 232 has been turned down by the Supreme Court. AIIS and the other plaintiffs in the case, which was decided in favor of the government last March, asked the Supreme Court to grant an extraordinary petition to take the case before the normally required appellate review (in this case, by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Without comment, the Supreme Court denied the petition yesterday.
The Court’s refusal to push the process is hardly a surprise. While the Supreme Court has the authority to take a case prior to normal appellate review, it very rarely does so. U.S. v. Nixon, the famous “Nixon tapes” case, is one that comes to mind. But that was indeed extraordinary.
The denial of the petition by itself only means that the case will take longer to reach the Supreme Court. None of the Justices explained the Court’s decision—that is customary. Therefore, the denial is not a comment on the merits of the case. Moreover, the decision in the Gundy case, which I mentioned a couple of days ago, clearly suggests that the issue of unconstitutional “delegation” of legislative power is a very current issue with the Court.
It is probably fruitless to speculate on anything but the timing of the case. For those who were hoping for the steel tariffs to go away soon, those hopes are likely to be frustrated by this case. The Court of Appeals decision will take the better part of a year to reach a conclusion. If the Court of Appeals concludes that binding Supreme Court precedent controls the constitutional issue, the Supreme Court will get another crack at the case. And, if the Court of Appeals finds that the 1976 case of Algonquin is not controlling precedent, the government surely will appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. By the time the high court decides the case, the 2020 election is likely to be over.
In the meantime, it will be worth following the litigation over 232. No telling what might happen.
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
Lewis Leibowitz
Read more from Lewis LeibowitzLatest in Trade Cases
Mills allege ‘critical circumstances’ in CORE trade case vs. South Africa, UAE
"Recent activity in the marketplace strongly indicates that these imports are being rushed into the United States in an effort to avoid the imposition of antidumping duties," petitioners said.
European Commission eyes retaliation vs. Trump steel tariffs: Report
The European Commission is looking into making current quotas on steel imports stricter as a countermeasure to President Trump’s recently announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to the US, according to an article in Reuters.
Trump could levy tariffs on auto imports in April: Report
President Donald Trump said last week that he could place tariffs on auto imports, according to an article in Politico.
Section 232 tariffs are headed downstream
The Trump administration has revealed the list of derivative steel products being added to the Section 232 tariff list.
Leibowitz: In Trump’s brave new world of tariffs, what will stick and what will courts challenge?
With a chronic trade deficit, the administration will continue to cite more tariffs as necessary. This is in error, as noted above. Yet the base of President Trump’s support does not see it that way. More tariffs are possible. But the only way to reduce the US trade deficit substantially is to close the gap between savings and investment in the United States.