US Asks for 2nd Extension in Massive Section 301 Case at CAFC
The U.S. asked for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would make the brief due on Dec. 21. The extension request is the second of its kind from the government, after it received a 60-day extension from the court (see 2308140026). Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, Pratik Shah and Matthew Nicely of Akin Gump, opposed the extension "absent some medical, family, or similar intervening justification," arguing that thousands of companies are still paying the large Section 301 duties. The plaintiff-appellants consented to the first extension (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The government said its review process "has taken longer than expected and is still ongoing," adding that more time is needed to coordinate with all the involved agencies and "to obtain necessary internal supervisory review." In addition, the U.S. said it needs more time since the case involves over 4,100 similar actions and four amicus briefs.
In their opening brief, the plaintiff-appellants made a host of arguments against the imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs (see 2307180069). The claims included arguments the U.S. trade representative didn't have the authority to set the duties since it was not directly delegated by Congress in violation of the "major questions doctrine," that the statute doesn't allow for duties to be set that are responding to retaliatory duties, and that USTR did not adequately respond to comments on the tariffs. The Court of International Trade upheld the USTR's imposition of the tariffs.