Swordsmyth
03-27-2019, 11:26 PM
A federal court in New York has rejected a constitutional challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, ruling that the move was premised on a lawful delegation of legislative authority.
The U.S. Court of International Trade, which has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of the customs and international trade laws, said Monday (https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/19-37.pdf) that the law the administration used to impose the tariffs had already passed constitutional muster under a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
A group of steel importers had challenged the March 2018 tariffs, arguing that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 violated the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers by delegating congressional powers to the president without an "intelligible principle" for doing so.
The American Institute for International Steel Inc. and two member companies, Sim-Tex and Kurt Orban Partners, said that Section 232 gave the president a "limitless grant" of power to determine when executive actions are necessary for national security purposes, without any significant mechanism for review.
A three-judge panel of the court, however, said that the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG had already decided that Section 232 met the "intelligible principle" standard because the scope of the law was limited to issues of national security.
In the court's ruling, Judge Claire P. Kelly noted that the line between regulation of trade in the name of national security and improper encroachment into the role of Congress "could be elusive in some cases." However, Kelly said those concerns fell beyond the court's purview, given the high court's ruling in Algonquin.
The plaintiffs argued that they should not be bound by the 1976 decision because Algonquinchallenged a specific remedy, and not the constitutionality of the underlying statute itself. The legal landscape for review of presidential actions had also shifted drastically since the previous case had been decided.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Gary S. Katzmann agreed that he and his colleagues were bound by the Supreme Court's earlier ruling, but said the constitutionality of the statute may need to be revisited.
"I respectfully suggest, however, that the fullness of time can inform understanding that may not have been available more than forty years ago. We deal now with real recent actions, not hypothetical ones," he wrote.
"If the delegation permitted by section 232, as now revealed, does not constitute excessive delegation in violation of the Constitution, what would?"
More at: https://news.yahoo.com/international-trade-court-upholds-constitutionality-052924993.html
The U.S. Court of International Trade, which has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of the customs and international trade laws, said Monday (https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/19-37.pdf) that the law the administration used to impose the tariffs had already passed constitutional muster under a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
A group of steel importers had challenged the March 2018 tariffs, arguing that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 violated the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers by delegating congressional powers to the president without an "intelligible principle" for doing so.
The American Institute for International Steel Inc. and two member companies, Sim-Tex and Kurt Orban Partners, said that Section 232 gave the president a "limitless grant" of power to determine when executive actions are necessary for national security purposes, without any significant mechanism for review.
A three-judge panel of the court, however, said that the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG had already decided that Section 232 met the "intelligible principle" standard because the scope of the law was limited to issues of national security.
In the court's ruling, Judge Claire P. Kelly noted that the line between regulation of trade in the name of national security and improper encroachment into the role of Congress "could be elusive in some cases." However, Kelly said those concerns fell beyond the court's purview, given the high court's ruling in Algonquin.
The plaintiffs argued that they should not be bound by the 1976 decision because Algonquinchallenged a specific remedy, and not the constitutionality of the underlying statute itself. The legal landscape for review of presidential actions had also shifted drastically since the previous case had been decided.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Gary S. Katzmann agreed that he and his colleagues were bound by the Supreme Court's earlier ruling, but said the constitutionality of the statute may need to be revisited.
"I respectfully suggest, however, that the fullness of time can inform understanding that may not have been available more than forty years ago. We deal now with real recent actions, not hypothetical ones," he wrote.
"If the delegation permitted by section 232, as now revealed, does not constitute excessive delegation in violation of the Constitution, what would?"
More at: https://news.yahoo.com/international-trade-court-upholds-constitutionality-052924993.html