J. Conrad LTD v. United States, 1:20-cv-00052

Background

Proclamation 9980 (Jan. 24, 2020; eff. Feb. 8, 2020) extended 25% Sec. 232 tariffs to derivative steel articles, including steel nails; multiple importers sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade (12 consolidated actions) challenging the Proclamation.
The American Steel Nail Coalition (an ad hoc group of U.S. nail manufacturers) moved to intervene as defendant in each case between Feb–Jun 2020, filed proposed answers and merits briefs, and later submitted supplemental evidence (declarations from member-company executives).
Six plaintiffs opposed intervention; the government did not affirmatively support intervention and consented to some preliminary relief in a subset of cases.
The court denied the Coalition’s motions to intervene both as of right (USCIT R. 24(a)) and permissively (USCIT R. 24(b)), and also held that none of the named member companies individually qualified for intervention.
Key bases for denial: (1) the government adequately represents the Coalition’s asserted interests; (2) permissive intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the original parties; (3) the Coalition lacks demonstrable legal existence and capacity and fails to show associational standing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Coalition may intervene as of right under USCIT R. 24(a)(2)	Coalition: its members have an economic interest in maintaining tariffs (they compete with importers) and the government may not adequately represent those private interests	Govt./Opponents: the government has the same central interest in defending Proclamation 9980 and will vigorously defend it; any private commercial motive does not create a separate protectable interest	Denied — Coalition (and members) did not show a legally protectable interest beyond the government’s, and the government adequately represents that interest
Whether permissive intervention is appropriate under USCIT R. 24(b) or § 2631(j)(1)	Coalition: § 2631(j) gives those “adversely affected” leave to intervene and Coalition shares common legal issues with the government	Govt./Opponents: intervention would unduly delay/prejudice plaintiffs; Coalition lacks associational standing and provides no cognizable defense because plaintiffs have no claim against it	Denied — intervention would unduly delay/prejudice; Coalition lacks associational standing and (for Rule 24(b)(1)(B)) has no proper defense because plaintiffs assert no claims against it
Whether the Coalition has legal existence and capacity to be a defendant-intervenor	Coalition: characterizes itself as analogous to a trade organization/unincorporated association representing members	Opponents/Court: record contains no organizational governance, officers, bank accounts, or an authorized declarant for the Coalition; filings show only member-company declarations and counsel’s assertion	Held: Coalition lacks separate legal existence and therefore (a) the motions are legal nullities and (b) the Coalition lacks capacity to be sued or to intervene
Whether intervenors must show independent Article III standing	Coalition: may piggyback on government’s standing to defend Proclamation 9980	Govt./Opponents/Court: consistent with Supreme Court precedent, an intervenor seeking the same relief as a party need not show independent standing; but § 2631(j) still requires associational/constitutional standing for statutory conditional intervention	Held: under Little Sisters and Town of Chester an intervenor seeking the same relief as a party need not independently establish Article III standing; however, § 2631(j) requires intervenors to satisfy associational standing/prudential requirements, which the Coalition failed to do

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes constitutional standing elements: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) (an intervenor must demonstrate standing for each form of relief it seeks; limits intervention of right when additional relief is sought)
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020) (clarifies that an intervenor seeking the same relief as a party need not show independent Article III standing)
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (permitted intervenors to rely on government standing where positions were identical)
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (limits permissive intervention where intervenor lacks a claim or defense because plaintiffs have no claim against them)
Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co. v. Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns, 695 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (framework for Rule 24(a) intervention analysis in Federal Circuit precedent)
Am. Mar. Transp., Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (competitor’s speculative future competitive injury does not create intervention-as-of-right interest)
Vivitar Corp. v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 1415 (CIT 1984) (discussed regarding potential differences between private and sovereign interests in defense of government action)