US Steel Manufacturers Association Challenges Trump Tariff Constitutionality

The American Steel Industry Association said it would challenge a recent federal court ruling upholding the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's actions to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from U.S. trading partners.

The American Institute for International Steel (AIIS) said on Monday in a statement that they would "immediately appeal" a ruling issued the same day by the US Court of International Trade (CIT), which upheld Trump's use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. 1962 introduce metal duties for national security reasons.

AIIS and two of its member companies - Texas-based oil and gas pipe wholesaler Sim-Tex and Kurt Orban Partners, a California-based international steel trader - filed a lawsuit with CIT on June 27, 2018, challenging the constitutionality of the tariffs. ...

The group stated that section 232 violates the constitutional prohibition on Congress delegating legislative powers to the president, as it lacks any “understandable principle” limiting the freedom to choose the president.

He added that concern for national security "is largely determined" by legislation passed over decades that "allows the president to set unlimited tariffs or create other trade barriers as he sees fit."

A panel of three judges of the New York court concluded that section 232 was consistent with the “standard of understandable principles,” citing FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., which was examined by the Supreme Court in 1976 and concerned a presidential decree imposing license fees on oil imports under section 232.

Judge Gary Katzmann wrote in his opinion after the ruling that he and his colleagues, relying largely on the 1976 Supreme Court decision, concluded that "the statute is undergoing constitutional review."

Asked about the advisability of complying with the 1976 Supreme Court decision, Katzmann wrote: "While I usefully acknowledge the binding force of this decision because of the completeness of the time and a clear understanding of recent actions, I have serious doubts."

Katzmann said it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that section 232 permitted the transfer of power to the president in violation of the separation of powers.