US steel importers aim to take suit against Trump national security tariffs to Supreme Court | MLex Market Insight Some items on our site have recently moved. Visit our News Hub for selected articles, special reports, podcasts and other resources. Close Help and Support Contact Us Our Websites UK DE FR NL RU Search Sales Enquiry Subscriber login Search Menu Coverage < Coverage Coverage A-M < Coverage A-M Antitrust & Competition Data Privacy & Security Financial Crime Future Mobility Mergers & Acquisitions Coverage N-Z < Coverage N-Z Sector Regulation State Aid Trade News Hub < News Hub News Hub < News Hub Antitrust & Competition News Data Privacy & Security News Financial Crime News Mergers & Acquisitions News Sector Regulation News State Aid News Trade News Extra content < Extra content Podcasts Special Reports Editor's Picks < Editor's Picks Top Categories < Top Categories Antitrust & Competition Data Privacy & Security Financial Services See All About us < About us About us < About us Why MLex What Our Subscribers Say Editorial Team Senior Management Bureaus Contact Us Contact Us Help and Support Home News Hub Editor's Picks Area of Expertise Trade US steel importers aim to take suit against Trump national security tariffs to Supreme Court Print US steel importers aim to take suit against Trump national security tariffs to Supreme Court 28 February 2020 12:32 Trade North America US steel importers plan to bring their legal bid against the Trump administration’s metal tariffs to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court today rejected claims the national security authority used to justify the levies violates the Constitution. The American Institute of International Steel, or AIIS, is aiming to file a petition with the nation’s highest court before it adjourns in June, Alan Morrison, one of the trade association’s attorneys, told MLex. Today’s opinion from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit maintained the Court of International Trade’s decision last year that ruled the Cold-War era national security authority — under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act — doesn't violate the Constitution; and a 1976 Supreme Court decision already ruled that the president has broad authority under Section 232. “We agree, and we therefore affirm,” Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Kara Stoll said. For nearly two years, AIIS has been arguing that Congress — in designing Section 232 without restrictions for the president in 1962 — improperly delegated its legislative authority to the executive branch. Decades later, President Donald Trump invoked Section 232 to imposed tariffs on most steel and aluminum imports — which rattled global supply chains and disrupted US trade relations with other governments, the group said. The American Iron and Steel Institute, or AISI, however, praised the Federal Circuit decision. AISI — which comprises major manufacturers such as AK Steel and Nucor — had backed the federal government in the lawsuit “This lawsuit by steel importers is a weak attempt to mask the fact that surging foreign imports have severely impacted the domestic steel industry and threaten our national and economic security,” said Thomas J. Gibson, president and CEO. “The Court today affirmed that Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it authorized the president to take action to adjust imports that threaten to impair our national security,” Gibson said. The dispute arises from the administration’s active use of Section 232, including the imposition of a 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent tariff on aluminum, in March 2018. The White House has also invoked the authority for proceedings that could unleash more trade restrictions on tariffs on foreign cars, titanium sponge and uranium. AIIS first lodged a complaint in June 2018 at the CIT. The trade court, however, sided with the federal government because it was bound to the 1976 Supreme Court decision. That led the group to file its first petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court in an attempt to expedite the appeals process. The court declined to review the case. AIIS then proceeded to go through the traditional route with the Federal Circuit, where oral arguments were immediately scheduled in January. Related Articles Chinese companies locked in EU legal fight over cross-border subsidies 28 March 2022 12:46 by Joanna Sopinska EU has been tightening its grip on imports benefiting from cross-border subsidies that China uses to expand its clout Trade Asia Europe Export rebates on the table again in EU carbon border levy talks 19 January 2022 10:16 EU exporters of metals, cement and fertilizers are pushing for rebates to be included under the proposed CBAM Energy Trade Europe EU sticking to carbon border levy plan as IMF, WTO call for global carbon price 02 November 2021 12:59 EU is committed to introducing a carbon border levy for polluting goods, in the face of calls from the heads of the IMF and WTO Energy Trade Cross-Jurisdiction Request a trial Select Company type Advisory Corporate Government & Regulatory Investment Management Law Firm Other Country Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Comments MLex Limited and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group of companies will use your personal information to administer your account and/or provide the products and services that you have requested from us. We may also contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Center. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our Privacy Policy. Filter by Expertise Antitrust & Competition Data Privacy & Security Energy Financial Crime Financial Services Mergers & Acquisitions State Aid Tech & Telco Trade See all Expertise Areas Filter by Jurisdiction Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania Cross-Jurisdiction Listen to MLex Podcasts MLex Podcasts Special Reports Is the GDPR doing its job? 20 September 2022 00:00 MLex crunches the data on how the EU’s pioneering privacy law has been enforced. Special Reports Data Privacy and Security Europe Return to Washington 11 April 2022 00:00 MLex coverage of the antitrust world’s premier event, ABA Spring Meeting in Washington, DC. Special Reports Antitrust Cross-Jurisdiction See all See all icon MLEX Exclusives on Twitter @mlexclusive Finally Keynote Judge Suzanne Kingston speaks about the view from Luxembourg. Looking at competition trends and pro… https://t.co/aYlk4YJ01R - 23 September 2022 17:29 .@lewis_crofts takes the moderator seat in our final panel discussion on multi-jurisdictional issues and where to l… https://t.co/2K2n35dLXh - 23 September 2022 16:31 Our 3rd sensational panel moderated by @SimonZekaria took a deep dive into collective and other representative proc… https://t.co/gBMcYc64ee - 23 September 2022 15:30 Connect with us: Facebook Twitter Vimeo Linkedin Company About MLex Senior Management Bureaus Coverage Antitrust & Competition Data Privacy & Security Financial Crime Mergers & Acquisitions Sector Regulation State Aid Trade Contact Us customerservices@mlex.com UK (Toll Free) +44 800 999 3237 US (Toll Free) +1 800 356 6547 Hong Kong +852 2965 1424 General Terms of Business Website Terms & Conditions of Use Privacy Policy Manage my cookie settings Preference Center Data Protection Inquiry Copyright © 2022 LexisNexis.