## Facts

- Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. § 1862, authorizes the President to adjust imports if the Secretary of Commerce finds imports threaten to impair national security.
- The statute requires a Commerce Department investigation, consultation with the Department of Defense and others, and a report to the President with findings and recommendations.
- Section 232(d) lists factors relevant to national security, including domestic capacity for defense needs, industry capacity and resources, effects of foreign competition, and the relationship between economic welfare and national security.
- After a Commerce Department investigation concluded steel imports threatened to impair national security, the President imposed a 25% ad valorem tariff on certain imported steel products on March 8, 2018.
- Importers and users of steel products brought a facial constitutional challenge, alleging § 232 contains no meaningful limits and unlawfully delegates Congress’s Article I power to the President.
- The Court of International Trade rejected the challenge, concluding Supreme Court precedent had already upheld § 232 against a delegation attack.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential decision; the Supreme Court later denied certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether 19 U.S.C. § 1862 is facially unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine because it allegedly grants the President effectively unlimited discretion to impose tariffs and otherwise adjust imports.
2. Whether lower federal courts may invalidate § 232 in light of later judicial writings questioning broad delegations, despite controlling Supreme Court precedent upholding § 232.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment rejecting the facial nondelegation challenge.
- The court held that Supreme Court precedent had already determined § 232 contains standards sufficient to satisfy the nondelegation doctrine.
- The court ruled that subsequent cases or separate opinions suggesting reconsideration of nondelegation doctrine did not permit a lower court to disregard controlling Supreme Court authority.
- Because the challenge was facial and controlling precedent upheld the statute’s standards, plaintiffs could not obtain declaratory or injunctive relief invalidating § 232.

## Legal Principles

- Lower courts are bound by controlling Supreme Court decisions and may not treat them as overruled based on later dicta or separate opinions.
- A delegation to the Executive is constitutionally permissible if Congress supplies an intelligible principle that guides and limits executive action.
- Statutory requirements for investigation, interagency consultation, reporting, and consideration of enumerated national-security factors can constitute limiting standards for delegated authority.
- Facial constitutional challenges are especially difficult where the Supreme Court has already upheld the statute against a similar constitutional theory.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld § 232 against a facial nondelegation challenge, concluding that controlling Supreme Court precedent deemed the statute’s standards sufficient and that only the Supreme Court could reconsider that determination.


Am. Inst. for Int'l Steel, Inc. v. United States, 806 F. App'x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2020)