497 F.Supp.3d 1333
Ct. Int'l Trade2021Background
- Proclamation 9980 (Jan. 24, 2020) extended 25% Section 232 tariffs to certain aluminum and steel "derivative" products (including steel nails), citing the Commerce Secretary's "assessments" and prior proclamations (notably Proclamation 9705). 9980 took effect Feb. 8, 2020.
- PrimeSource, an importer of steel nails, sued the United States and executive officers challenging Proclamation 9980 on five theories (APA/regulatory violations by Commerce, untimeliness under Section 232, Fifth Amendment due process, unconstitutional delegation, and Section 232 procedural violations by Commerce).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under USCIT Rule 12(b)(6); PrimeSource opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment on the remaining claim(s).
- The court dismissed Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 for failure to state a claim: Commerce’s "assessments" were not final agency actions under the APA; Due Process and nondelegation challenges failed; Section 232 does not provide a private cause of action for those claims outside the APA.
- The court denied dismissal of Count 2 (claim that Proclamation 9980 was untimely under Section 232) because it found PrimeSource’s claim plausible and factual issues remain about whether Commerce’s later "assessments" functioned as reports under §1862(b)(3)(A); summary judgment for PrimeSource was denied because genuine factual disputes exist.
Issues
| Issue | PrimeSource's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Commerce Secretary "assessments" final agency actions subject to APA review? | Secretary's communications were the consummation of decisionmaking and produced legal consequences, so they are reviewable as final agency action. | The Secretary's assessments were advisory recommendations; only the President's proclamation implemented tariffs, so no final agency action exists for APA review. | Held for U.S.: assessments were not final agency action; Counts alleging APA/regulatory violations against Commerce dismissed. |
| Did Proclamation 9980 violate Section 232 timing (90+15 day rules) so it is invalid? | The President acted outside §1862(c)(1) because he issued 9980 638 days after the §232 report (Steel Report), so the 105-day window had closed. | The President either validly modified the timely 2018 action (9705) to include derivatives, or the statutory deadlines are directory, not mandatory. | Held: Claim plausible. Court denied dismissal of Count 2 (statutory-timeliness claim) and denied PrimeSource summary judgment because genuine factual disputes (e.g., role/nature of Commerce "assessments") remain. |
| Did Proclamation 9980 violate PrimeSource's Fifth Amendment due process rights? | PrimeSource had a property interest in prior tariff treatment and was entitled to notice/comment before tariffs on derivatives were imposed. | Fifth Amendment does not require notice/comment for Presidential action under Section 232; no protected property interest in unchanged tariff treatment. | Held for U.S.: Count 3 dismissed (no due process violation). |
| Is Section 232 an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? | (Count alleged over-delegation) Congress gave unbounded discretion to the President to adjust imports and derivatives. | Section 232 sets intelligible standards and historical practice supports the delegation. | Held for U.S.: Count 4 dismissed (nondelegation challenge foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent). |
Key Cases Cited
- Maple Leaf Fish Co. v. United States, 762 F.2d 86 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (standard for judicial review of presidential action under a statute: limited to clear misconstruction, significant procedural violation, or action outside delegated authority)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (President not an "agency" under the APA; limits on APA review of Presidential action)
- United States v. George S. Bush & Co., 310 U.S. 371 (1940) (where statute commits determination to the President, courts may not review factual determinations)
- Silfab Solar, Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (nonstatutory review against Presidential action is rare and limited)
- Motion Sys. Corp. v. Bush, 437 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) (limits on judicial review where President’s action is implicated; discussion of final agency action)
- Corus Group PLC v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 352 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( §1581(i) does not authorize proceedings directly against the President)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient under Rule 8)
- Federal Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976) (upholding broad statutory delegations in national security context)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (agency action final if it consummates decisionmaking and produces legal consequences)