519 F.Supp.3d 1313
Ct. Int'l Trade2021Background
- In 2018 the President imposed 25% Section 232 tariffs on certain steel; Commerce established an exclusion process allowing importers to seek product‑specific, nontransferable one‑year exclusions and permitting any domestic entity to object.
- Six domestic importers (manufacturers and a distributor) applied for exclusions, Commerce denied (or mostly denied) the requests, the importers paid the duties, and then sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) and the APA seeking refunds or remand.
- Domestic steel producers who had objected to the exclusion requests before Commerce sought to intervene as defendant‑intervenors in several of the suits (including U.S. Steel, several pipe producers, Electralloy, Crucible, and Ellwood entities).
- The proposed intervenors invoked intervention as of right (USCIT R. 24(a)(2)) and permissive intervention (USCIT R. 24(b)(1)(A)/(B)), citing economic harm, participation in the administrative process, 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1), and a claimed shared defense with the government.
- The Court denied all motions to intervene, holding the proposed intervenors lacked Article III standing or a legally protectable interest, could not show a direct, immediate effect from the judgment, and could not establish entitlement to permissive intervention (statutory or shared‑defense bases). The Court invited amici briefing instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant / Proposed Intervenors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to intervene | Intervenors lack independent standing and have not shown piggyback standing. | Intervenors claim either piggyback (seeking same relief as government) or independent economic injury. | Denied where intervenors failed to establish either piggyback or independent standing; several motions omitted any standing showing and were denied on that basis. |
| Intervention as of right (USCIT R. 24(a)(2)) — legally protectable interest | No statutory right under §232; Commerce’s open objection process grants no exclusive legal interest. | Participation in Commerce objections and economic stake create a protectable interest (analogy to AD/CVD proceedings). | Denied: §232 and Commerce’s process confer no exclusive statutory right; allowing anyone to object defeats a cognizable protectable interest. |
| Intervention as of right — whether judgment will directly affect intervenors | Plaintiffs: judgment cannot create sales opportunities because imports were completed and duties paid; any benefit to intervenors is speculative/contingent. | Intervenors: affirmance of Commerce will protect market share, prevent depressed prices, and preserve sales opportunities. | Denied: any benefit to intervenors would be indirect and contingent (imports already done), so interests are not direct and immediate. |
| Permissive intervention (USCIT R. 24(b)) — statutory (28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)) and shared defense | Plaintiffs: statute requires being "adversely affected or aggrieved" and constitutional plus prudential standing; no shared defense because plaintiffs have no claim against private parties. | Intervenors: §2631(j)(1) permits leave to intervene; they are injured by refunding duties; they share the government’s defense. | Denied: U.S. Steel and Pipe Producers failed to establish constitutional standing and prudential (third‑party) standing under §2631(j)(1); Rule 24(b)(1)(B) fails because plaintiffs assert claims only against the government so proposed intervenors have no cognizable "defense" to share. |
Key Cases Cited
- PrimeSource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 494 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (CIT 2021) (discussing intervention limits in Section 232 cases and amici alternative)
- Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co. v. Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns, 695 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Federal Circuit framework for intervention elements)
- Am. Mar. Transp., Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (intervention precedent on direct/contingent interests)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing burden and evidentiary requirements at successive stages)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (administrative‑record limitation on judicial review)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (pleading‑stage standing requires factual allegations for each element)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (rejecting broad competitive‑injury standing simply because parties compete in the same market)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (injury requires more than speculation about third‑party decisions)
- Rohm & Haas Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 554 F.2d 462 (CCPA 1977) (standing principles for intervention in trade litigation)