United States v. American Institute for International Steel, Inc. et al.

1. Case Title and Citation 

United States v. American Institute for International Steel, Inc., et al. Citation: 806 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 133 (2020) 

2. Court Name & Bench 

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
• Bench: Three-judge panel 
• Judges: Reyna, Taranto, Hughes 

3. Date of Judgment 

• Federal Circuit Decision: February 28, 2020 
• Supreme Court Denial of Certiorari: June 22, 2020 

4. Parties Involved 

• Petitioner: American Institute for International Steel (AIIS), and two steel importers • Respondent: United States of America 

5. Facts of the Case 

In March 2018, President Donald J. Trump imposed a 25% tariff on steel imports, citing  “national security” under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The rationale  was that dependence on foreign steel weakened national defense capabilities. 

This action followed a report by the Secretary of Commerce, which concluded that steel  imports threatened to impair U.S. national security. The President acted unilaterally, without  further congressional approval. 

The American Institute for International Steel (AIIS), a trade group representing steel  importers, challenged this action, arguing that Section 232 unconstitutionally delegates 

legislative power to the President. They claimed the statute granted unchecked discretion,  violating the nondelegation doctrine. 

6. Issues Raised 
7. Does Section 232 violate the nondelegation doctrine by granting the President  legislative power without adequate standards? 
8. Can the judiciary review or limit the President’s actions under the guise of  national security? 
9. What constitutional limits, if any, apply to executive authority in trade matters? 
10. Arguments of the Parties 

Plaintiffs (AIIS): 

• Section 232 lacks an “intelligible principle,” giving the President virtually unlimited  authority. 
• The phrase “national security” is overly broad and undefined. 
• The President effectively created law through tariff imposition—violating the  separation of powers. 
• No meaningful judicial review was available, leading to an unchecked concentration  of power. 

Government (United States): 

• Section 232 provides an intelligible principle — national security — which has  historically guided executive action. 
• The delegation is lawful under longstanding precedent. 
• Congress explicitly intended the President to have discretion in national security related trade matters. 
• The courts should defer to the executive on foreign commerce and national defense. 

8. Judgment / Holding 

The Federal Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Section 232, concluding that: 

• The statute meets the “intelligible principle” test from J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v.  United States.
• The President’s discretion is bounded by investigatory and reporting requirements from the Commerce Department. 
• The court was bound by the Supreme Court’s precedent in Algonquin SNG (1976),  which upheld Section 232 in a prior context. 

In June 2020, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, letting the Federal Circuit’s decision  stand. 

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

The court’s reasoning emphasized: 

• Judicial deference to the executive in matters of foreign affairs and national security. 
• The existence of a procedural framework (i.e., Commerce Department review) limits  arbitrary executive action. 
• The judiciary must respect the legislative delegation made explicitly by Congress in  1962. 
• Any change to limit or repeal Section 232 must come from Congress, not the courts. 

10. Obiter Dicta 

While ruling in favor of the government, the court noted: 

• The broad language of Section 232 could pose future constitutional questions. • Critics of the statute should petition Congress to revise or repeal it. 
• The lack of time constraints or quantitative limitations on the President’s action  raised concerns, but not constitutional violations under current precedent. 

11. Observations 

This case illuminated the fragile balance between the legislative and executive branches when  it comes to international trade. It revealed how easily national security language can justify  expansive executive actions with limited judicial review. The court’s unwillingness to  second-guess the President’s judgment sets a concerning precedent for unchecked economic  power. 

While the ruling upheld the law, it left open significant policy and constitutional debates that remain unresolved. 

12. Table of Authorities

Cases: 

• United States v. AIIS, 806 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2020) 
• J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) 
• Federal Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976) • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) 
• A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) Statutes: 
• Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232 — Pub. L. No. 87-794, 76 Stat. 877 • U.S. Constitution, Article I (Legislative Powers), Article II (Executive Powers) 

13. Continuing Relevance in 2025 

Although the legal dispute formally ended in 2020, the constitutional question remains  unresolved in spirit. 

As of 2025, Donald J. Trump — now a leading political figure once again — has publicly  floated renewed tariffs on nations like China and Mexico. His campaign rhetoric frames  trade as national defense, echoing the same justification used under Section 232. 

Despite growing bipartisan concern, Congress has not amended or repealed Section 232,  meaning the President — any president — still retains broad unilateral power to impose  tariffs without congressional approval. No subsequent case has successfully challenged the  statute. 

Further, multiple 2025 trade lawsuits are reportedly underway in lower courts, once again  citing Section 232 authority. Legal scholars have reignited debate around nondelegation and executive overreach, pushing for Supreme Court clarification that has yet to materialize. 

This case, though technically closed, is a legal powder keg waiting to be reignited — especially as global trade conflicts intensify. The constitutional silence around this issue in  2025 suggests that United States v. AIIS may have been the beginning, not the end, of the  legal battle over who really holds the power to tax the world.