Irving Paper Limited v. United States
1:17-cv-00128
| Ct. Intl. Trade | Mar 14, 2018Background
- This is an order resolving a motion by the COALITION (an ad hoc association of lumber companies) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in a trade case involving Irving Paper Limited and the U.S. concerning jurisdictional questions about expedited countervailing duty (CVD) reviews.
- The COALITION sought to address the court's request for authority supporting 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(k), the regulation authorizing expedited CVD reviews, arguing no statutory basis supports expedited reviews in CVD proceedings.
- The government (Defendant) and Verso Corporation (defendant-intervenor) consented to the COALITION’s motion; Plaintiff Irving Paper and Plaintiff-Intervenors (Government of Canada and New Brunswick) opposed it, arguing the COALITION is not neutral and seeks to pre-litigate a separate challenge.
- The court evaluated amicus admission under USCIT Rule 76 and relevant factors used by courts (e.g., whether the amicus is disinterested, opposition by parties, whether counsel can argue without amicus, and the usefulness/strength of the amicus’s arguments).
- The COALITION presented an alternate, comprehensive legal analysis challenging statutory authorizations cited by the parties (Uruguay Round implementation statutes and 19 U.S.C. § 1675), a viewpoint not represented by any party.
- The court granted the motion, accepted the COALITION’s amicus brief, designated the COALITION as amicus curiae, and allowed parties to file responses by a set deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the COALITION should be allowed to file an amicus brief | COALITION is adversarial, not a true "friend of the court"; motion is pre‑litigation of its own agency challenge | Admission is permissible; COALITION offers useful, alternative analysis on an issue the court requested | Granted: court allowed COALITION to appear as amicus and accepted its brief |
| Whether an amicus must be disinterested | COALITION’s interest in related agency proceedings makes it an adversary and inappropriate amicus | Rule 76 requires identification of interest; amici need not be disinterested and may have direct stakes | Court: disinterest is not required; having an interest can support usefulness as amicus |
| Whether the COALITION’s brief would assist the court | Its brief is unnecessary and duplicates or undermines Plaintiffs’ positions | COALITION presents an unrepresented, thorough statutory argument that may aid the court | Court: brief will assist because it presents ideas and arguments not in the parties’ briefs |
| Whether Commerce has statutory authority for expedited CVD reviews (substantive issue COALITION addresses) | Parties asserted authority in Uruguay Round implementation statutes and 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a) / § 3513(a) | COALITION contends none of those statutes authorize expedited CVD reviews | Court did not decide the substantive authority issue here; it admitted the amicus so the argument can be addressed in filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Sandusky, 205 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1953) (describing the traditional role of an amicus curiae as a friend of the court)
- Funbus Sys., Inc. v. State of Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 801 F.2d 1120 (9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing amici may take positions advocating legal arguments)
- Voices for Choices v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003) (amicus can assist by presenting ideas not found in parties’ briefs; interest in related cases can support usefulness)
- In re Opprecht, 868 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (granting amicus status is within the court’s discretion)
- N. Sec. Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555 (1903) (courts have discretion to allow amicus participation)