Supreme Court Rejects Chance to Rule on Limits of National Security Tariff Provision
The Supreme Court of the U.S. declined to take up a key case over the president's power under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. Rejecting a petition from importer Transpacific Steel and several other companies, SCOTUS in effect upheld a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said that the president can increase tariffs under Section 232 beyond procedural time limits.
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.
"We believe that this leaves open an important issue regarding Congressional delegation authority to the President," said Julie Mendoza, lead counsel for the challenge. "So far, the Congress has been unable to legislatively impose appropriate restraints on the President in the Section 232 context. ... In terms of this case, that is the end of the road. In terms of more oversight of Presidential action under Section 232, Congressional action is the solution."
The case concerns President Donald Trump's August 2018 tariff hike on Turkish steel, raising the duties from 25% to 50%, allegedly in violation of procedural time limits set out in the statute. Section 232 says that the president can only impose such duties within 105 days of receiving a report from the Commerce Department that discusses the prospect of applying these tariffs. A three-judge CAFC panel overturned a Court of International Trade decision that originally found the rate hike to be improper because it came after the 105-day deadline (see 2007140046). The panel said that the president could defy the time limits if the duties were part of the report's original plan of action.
Following a failed bid at a full court rehearing at the Federal Circuit (see 2109270019), the plaintiffs petitioned SCOTUS to take the case (see 2111150061). Various parties filed amicus briefs in the case, raising its profile. One such party included a group of five Republican senators who urged the court to reject the Federal Circuit's ruling (see 2112160033).