Almond Bros. Lumber v. United States
721 F.3d 1320
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Almond is a group of domestic softwood lumber producers suing the United States and the USTR in the Trade Court challenging the 2006 SLA Distribution Term.
- The 2006 SLA ended antidumping and countervailing duties and required Canada to distribute $1 billion in specified ways, including $500 million to Coalition members.
- Almond alleges the Distribution Term violated the statute by excluding non-Coalition producers and by not tying compensation to harm suffered.
- The Trade Court dismissed Counts 2–4 for failure to state a claim; Almond appealed to the Federal Circuit.
- The Federal Circuit reviews the Trade Court de novo and assesses APA reviewability limits under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) and statutory limits in 19 U.S.C. § 2411.
- The court ultimately affirms dismissal, holding the Distribution Term is discretionary and not reviewable under the APA, and that the equal protection and delegation claims fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APA review is available for the Distribution Term. | Almond argues Term violates §2411(c) and is reviewable. | Government says Term is discretionary by law and not reviewable under §701(a)(2). | Yes, review is precluded; terms are discretionary and immune from review. |
| Whether the Distribution Term complies with §2411(c)(4) directing benefits to the relevant economic sector. | Almond contends benefits must go to all industry members in proportion to harm. | USTR has discretion; benefits need not cover every member or be proportional. | Discretionary; not required to extend to all members or proportional allocation. |
| Whether the USTR delegated the allocation to the Coalition or otherwise violated delegation norms. | Almond asserts unlawful delegation to a private entity. | Allocation was negotiated by the USTR, not delegated. | No actionable delegation; no state injury to almonds. |
| Whether the equal protection claim has a rational basis. | Almond argues exclusion of non-Coalition producers violates equal protection. | Rational basis of termination and settlement justifies the Allocation. | Rational-basis review upheld; no invalid disparate treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (agency discretion precludes review in rare cases under §701(a)(2))
- Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (limits review where statute affords no meaningful standard)
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1993) (review deference for agency expertise in discretion-bound matters)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)
- Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 419 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (remedial statutes interpreted broadly (contextual))
- Almond III, 651 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (history of softwood lumber litigation and SLA context)
- Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (statutory interpretation of trade remedies framework)