Section 301 Lawyers Agree on One Sample Case, 15-Member Committee
Lawyers for the roughly 3,700 Section 301 complaints inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade reached consensus on picking the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products action as the sole sample case in the massive litigation and on seating 15 among their ranks for the plaintiffs’ steering committee, HMTX-Jasco counsel Akin Gump said in the lawyers’ “coordinated proposal” March 19. Though plaintiffs “cannot guarantee 100% agreement on every issue on behalf of every single counsel,” they are “not aware of any objection to this proposal after repeated consultations and opportunities for review,” it said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The court will find out for sure by March 26 when dissents are due from any lawyers who feel they were denied seats on the steering committee or designations as sample cases. “The consultation process with counsel representing plaintiffs in the 3,700+ Section 301 cases filed to date has been extensive, spanning multiple email, video, and phone communications,” Akin Gump said. At least one Zoom call in the weeks leading to Friday’s filing numbered nearly 300 lawyers at a time.
There was little doubt all along that HMTX-Jasco would serve as one of the sample cases, though not necessarily the only one. Several law firms made positioning statements early on that the number and nature of the sample cases needed to reflect the body of litigation “because not all the complaints have articulated the same substantive challenges or the same causes of action” (see 2010230044). Lawyers ultimately reached consensus around pragmatism -- widely shared -- that letting Akin Gump and HMTX-Jasco go first gave the litigation its best chance of success.
HMTX-Jasco is a “suitable representative” case for the 3,700+ complaints filed because all “share at least the same two causes of action,” Akin Gump said. They all seek a declaratory judgment that the lists 3 and 4A tariffs are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act and run afoul of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act because they were forged from notice-and-comment rulemakings that were sloppy and lacked transparency. “Those two causes of action present predominantly legal issues, the resolution of which will not depend on plaintiff-specific facts or defenses.”
Any “additional claims raised by certain individual plaintiffs,” including allegations that the tariffs were an unconstitutional form of federal revenue collection, “either reflect non-substantive variations on, or complement, the two causes of action” in HMTX-Jasco, Akin Gump said. The court’s Feb. 16 procedural order said plaintiffs whose cases would be stayed can still participate in the sample case litigation by filing amicus briefs.
Determining which lawyers would sit on the proposed 15-member steering committee was based on a variety of criteria, including the volume of complaints their firms filed and their representation of additional claims, plus their experience arguing cases before the CIT or appellate courts, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Members also were picked for their geographical diversity. Akin Gump’s filing listed their home cities next to their names. Of the 15, seven are based in Washington, D.C., three in Chicago, two in New York and one each in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Five of the proposed members are women, including three who are women of color.
Plaintiffs can’t get the Department of Justice to confirm that a “refund remedy” would be available for all tariffs unlawfully collected” if they prevail in the litigation, “regardless of whether entries subject to such duties have liquidated,” Akin Gump said. “The availability of refunds regardless of liquidation status is of critical importance to all plaintiffs -- and should be important to defendants as well. Clarity regarding such relief is vital to ensuring that these cases are handled efficiently, effectively, and with the least judicial and administrative burden possible.”
DOJ supported refund stipulations in a 2020 case before the CIT and in a 2019 action before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and should do so for the Section 301 litigation, Akin Gump said. “Absent such relief, plaintiffs will be forced immediately to file motions for preliminary injunctive relief to enjoin the ongoing collection of (unlawful) duties pending the outcome of this lawsuit in order to avoid imminent, accruing, and irreparable harm in the form of permanent lost refunds.” If DOJ keeps refusing to back the refund stipulation, it’s feared DOJ and CIT risk being flooded with nearly 4,000 motions for injunctive relief from virtually all the individual plaintiffs, hopelessly delaying the litigation. DOJ didn’t comment.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the filing.