D.C. Circuit Again Finds Parts of Conflict Minerals Rule Unconstitutional
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Aug. 17 upheld its own year-old ruling decision finding parts of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Conflict Minerals Rule to be unconstitutional (here). In response to an SEC request for…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
rehearing, the appeals court continued to hold that the requirement to say if a product is “not DRC conflict free” in company reports and on company websites illegally compels speech in violation of the First Amendment. Under the Conflict Minerals Rule, companies that use tantalum, tin, gold or tungsten that may have originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country must declare their products are not DRC conflict free (see 12082308). Reports for 2015 were due on June 1. The latest guidance from the SEC, issued in the aftermath of the D.C. Circuit’s original ruling in April 2014 that found the regulations unconstitutional (see 14041517), is that companies do not have to identify the products as "DRC conflict undeterminable" or "not found to be DRC conflict free,’’ but should disclose the facilities used to produce the conflict minerals, the country of origin of the minerals and the efforts to determine the mine or location of origin (see 14050226).