815 F. Supp. 2d 1301
Ct. Int'l Trade2012Background
- NHBB challenges CDSOA as unconstitutional and administration thereof, alleging denial of ADP status and CDSOA distributions for 2006–2008.
- ITC/CBP denied NHBB ADP status and CDSOA distributions because NHBB did not support the petition in the ITC proceeding.
- SKF USA II upheld CDSOA against First Amendment and equal protection challenges, binding on the court.
- NHBB asserts facial and as-applied First Amendment and equal protection challenges and due process retroactivity concerns.
- Plaintiff also asserts APA violations based on ITC and CBP conduct.
- Court exercises jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) and dismisses the action for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of the CDSOA petition support requirement | NHBB argues First Amendment/EP invalidity; seeks relief | SKF USA II controls; statute not unconstitutional as applied | Foreclosed by SKF USA II; claims dismissed |
| As-applied First Amendment and equal protection challenges | NHBB claims differential treatment violates First Amendment/EP | NHBB treated like SKF-type non-supporters; no distinction | Foreclosed by SKF USA II; dismissed as to as-applied challenges |
| Due process retroactivity of the CDSOA | Retroactive application of petition support burdens NHBB | Retroactivity justified by rational legislative purpose | Retroactivity upheld; no due process violation; claim dismissed |
| APA challenge to ITC/CBP actions | Actions arbitrary and capricious under APA | No unlawful agency action; petition-support misinterpretation | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; misinterpretation fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (upheld CDSOA against constitutional challenges; binds court for facial/as-applied challenges)
- Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. v. United States, 428 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (retroactivity under rational basis; national economic policy deference)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1984) (retroactivity justified by rational legislative purpose; burden on legislature to justify retroactivity)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (retroactivity analysis in administrative retroactivity context)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Repub. Party, 552 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (facial challenges require no set of circumstances where act valid)