The US Court of International Trade will hear today oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal law used to impose Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports this year.
The lawsuit, filed in July by the American Institute for International Steel (AIIS), argues that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 is unconstitutional because it lacks any “intelligible principle” limiting the president’s authority to impose tariffs on alleged national security grounds. The lawsuit argues that the definition of what counts as a national security reason to restrict imports has been stretched too far by the current presidential administration.
The arguments will be heard by a panel of three judges, when most cases before the court are heard by a single judge. In a statement to media, AIIS said the expanded panel “bolsters our chances of achieving an end to the damaging, unwarranted, and potentially indefinite trade restriction imposed under this statute.”
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) issued a statement today in response to the hearing. Thomas J. Gibson, president and CEO of AISI, said the association continues to “strongly believe this case is without merit and the effort by importers of foreign steel to undermine the Section 232 relief through this case is bound to fail.”
The AISI, in conjunction with the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA), in September submitted an amicus brief in the lawsuit. Gibson said the AISI-SMA submission points out that “there is binding Supreme Court precedent (Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG) which establishes that Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it authorized the president to take action to adjust imports, based on the Secretary of Commerce’s determination. The statute sets forth an intelligible principle for the president to follow in carrying out the policy set by Congress.”