376 F. Supp. 3d 1335
Ct. Int'l Trade2019Background
- Plaintiffs (American Institute for International Steel, Sim‑Tex, Kurt Orban Partners) sought a facial declaration that 19 U.S.C. § 1862 (section 232) is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power in violation of Article I, §1.
- Section 232 empowers the Secretary of Commerce to investigate whether imports threaten national security, requires consultation (including with Defense), and directs the Secretary to report to the President with findings and recommendations.
- If the President concurs that a national‑security threat exists, §232 authorizes the President to “determine the nature and duration of the action” to adjust imports, considering enumerated factors in §232(d).
- Plaintiffs argued §232 provides an unbounded grant to the President (e.g., unlimited tariffs, quotas, licensing) and thus lacks an intelligible principle.
- Defendants relied principally on Supreme Court precedent in Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976), which upheld §232 against a delegation challenge, and argued the statute satisfies the nondelegation doctrine.
- Court held Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied and granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding Algonquin binding and §232 provides an intelligible principle; Judge Katzmann issued a dubitante opinion expressing grave doubts but concurred based on precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §232 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power (facial challenge) | §232 vests virtually unbounded discretion in the President to impose duties/quotas/fees without intelligible principle or congressional limits | Algonquin controls; §232 contains clear preconditions and factors (an intelligible principle) so delegation is constitutional | Denied: §232 upheld as meeting intelligible‑principle standard; Algonquin is binding |
| Whether changes in post‑Algonquin doctrine (APA/Presidential review) undermine Algonquin | Recent decisions limit APA review of the President, so Algonquin’s reliance on review assumptions is outdated | Dalton/Franklin did not alter the nondelegation analysis or the availability of nonstatutory review for presidential action; Algonquin remains applicable | Denied: changes in APA jurisprudence do not undercut Algonquin’s holding |
| Whether presidential actions under §232 are reviewable for abuse of discretion/facts | Plaintiffs: lack of judicially manageable standards means executive actions escape meaningful review | Defendants: Congress committed certain determinations to the President; review is limited to constitutionality/excess of statutory authority; Algonquin accepted that framework | Held: determinations are largely committed to President; courts are bound by Algonquin’s approach limiting review |
| Scope and limits of remedies President may impose under §232 | Plaintiffs: remedies (tariffs/quotas/licensing) are effectively legislative and limitless—raising separation‑of‑powers concerns | Defendants: remedies are constrained by the statutory preconditions and factors to be considered; President acts pursuant to statutory grant and within intelligible principle | Held: statute’s preconditions and §232(c)/(d) factors suffice to cabin presidential discretion for nondelegation purposes; challenges to specific actions remain governed by Algonquin framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976) (upheld §232 as meeting intelligible‑principle nondelegation standard)
- J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) (announced the "intelligible principle" test for delegation)
- Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892) (upheld conditional presidential proclamation under tariff law as fact‑finding, not lawmaking)
- Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) (invalidated statute for lacking guiding standards)
- A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) (struck statute for impermissible delegation)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (reaffirmed broad tolerance for delegation where an intelligible principle exists)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (President not an "agency" under the APA)
- Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) (presidential action committed to discretion limits judicial review)