34 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1189
Ct. Int'l Trade2012Background
- Rack Room Shoes and other U.S. importers challenge HTSUS tariff provisions on glove, footwear, and apparel as violating the Equal Protection Clause; prior Totes line of cases held no facial discrimination and limited disparate-impact claims in tariff context; plaintiffs re-filed in three test cases after Supreme Court denial of certiorari in Totes III; plaintiffs add two alleged facts to support discriminatory intent; the court must assess plausibility under Twombly/Iqbal and Totes III standards; court grants government motion to dismiss with prejudice.
- HTSUS provisions in dispute are not facially discriminatory per Totes III; disparate impact alone is insufficient to plead discriminatory purpose in tariff context per Totes III; plaintiffs must allege a plausible invidious discriminatory purpose tied to Congress’s actions; the amended complaints fail to plead such facts; court dismisses with prejudice.
- The court recognizes Tariff provisions are typically justified by trade policy and economic considerations rather than gender/age classifications; facial neutrality plus lack of evidence of discriminatory intent dooms equal protection claims in this context; result is dismissal under Twombly/Iqbal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs plead a plausible invidious discriminatory purpose | Forever 21 asserts Congress intended gender/age discrimination | United States contends no plausible discriminatory purpose shown | Dismissed; insufficient to plead plausible purpose |
| Whether disparate impact suffices in tariff context | Pls allege disparate impact implies discriminatory intent | Disparate impact alone insufficient in tariff context | Dismissed; disparate impact not enough to plead discrimination |
| Whether two additional allegations state a plausible claim | New allegations show discriminatory intent | Allegations are conclusory or rely on historical commentary | Dismissed; not plausibly connecting to invidious intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. United States, 594 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (tariff context requires plausible intent; not facially discriminatory)