US Asks for More Time to File Reply at Supreme Court in Section 232 'Derivatives' Suit

The U.S. asked for more time to file its reply to importer PrimeSource's writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court in its case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products. The government asked for another month, until Sept. 25, to complete its brief, explaining its response was delayed due to the "heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter." The brief is due Aug. 24.

PrimeSource petitioned the high court July 26, urging the body to take up its case to settle ambiguity in statutes delegating large amounts of legislative power to the executive (see 2307270028). The importer added that the case could be a chance for the court to reconsider its approach to nondelegation, saying the Trade Act of 1930 raises separation of powers concerns large enough to require that courts find clear congressional authorization before interpreting the statute in a way that grows the scope of the president's delegated authority. The argument rests on the "major questions" doctrine championed by the Supreme Court in the recent West Virginia v. EPA opinion.

In PrimeSource's case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Trump legally expanded the Section 232 duties to cover the derivative goods, even though the action was taken beyond procedural time limits. The court said the expansion is permitted so long as the move relates to the president's original "plan of action" dictated in the imposition of the initial Section 232 duties (see 2302070030).