Rack Room Shoes v. United States
718 F.3d 1370
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Importers Rack Room Shoes, Skiz Imports LLC, and Forever 21 challenge HTSUS classifications as discriminating by age or gender under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
- Trade Court dismissed for failure to state a claim; this court reviews de novo eligibility to plead.
- Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. United States established that facially neutral HTSUS provisions require pleading governmental purpose to discriminate, not merely disparate impact.
- After Totes, the importers amended claims to include disparate impact and purposeful discrimination; the three cases were consolidated.
- Skiz is found to lack standing due to no close third-party relationship or injury; Rack Room and Forever 21 are found to lack a plausible discrimination claim.
- Overall, the court affirms dismissal of Rack Room and Forever 21 and dismisses Skiz for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of the importers | Skiz asserts third-party or first-party standing; Rack Room and Forever 21 argue standing via derivative injury. | Government contends standing requirements fail for all three and that Skiz lacks injury or close relationship. | Skiz lacks standing; Rack Room and Forever 21 have third-party standing only for derivative injury. |
| Whether HTSUS classifications are facially discriminatory | Rack Room contends HTSUS discriminates by gender and age; seeks facial discrimination finding. | Government argues HTSUS is not facially discriminatory; relies on Totes reasoning. | No facial discrimination found; analysis follows Totes and related decisions. |
| Plausible discriminatory intent under equal protection | Rack Room and Forever 21 allege discriminatory intent through legislative history and alternatives. | Government contends no plausible inference of discriminatory purpose; evidence insufficient. | Neither Rack Room nor Forever 21 pleads plausible discriminatory intent. |
| Disparate impact sufficiency under equal protection | Plaintiffs argue disparate impact plus intent is shown by HTSUS structure and outcomes. | Disparate impact alone does not state an equal protection claim; must show discriminatory purpose. | Disparate impact alone insufficient; no plausible discriminatory purpose pled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. United States, 594 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (disparate impact alone not enough; require governmental purpose to discriminate)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (discriminatory purpose required for equal protection violations)
- Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1979) (discriminatory purpose requires more than awareness of consequences)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury in fact essential for standing)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (third-party standing framework)
- Nissho Iwai Am. Corp. v. United States, 143 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (HS/TUS lineage; TSUS to HTSUS transition context)
- JVC Co. of Am., Div. of US JVC Corp. v. United States, 234 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (legislative history and statutory interpretation in HTSUS context)
- Marubeni Am. Corp. v. United States, 35 F.3d 530 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (HTSUS/TSUS transition considerations)