In this essay, the author will discuss recent United States Supreme Court cases as well as international trade cases decided this year by the specialized international trade courts in the United States. Let me then discuss recent U.S. trade action concerning China and put this in the context of President Trump’s generalized approach to China and international trade. This article will conclude with a few observations pertaining to the upcoming presidential election in the United States. The. Supreme Court recently ruled on two highly politicized and historic cases on executive power. What has been almost totally overlooked is an international trade decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade. That case and earlier trade cases indicate the start of a multifaceted attempt to restrict the president’s trade policies. Either the 2020 presidential election will put a stop to President Trump’s reliance on national security to establish disastrous trade policies, or the country will be in this mess for years to come.

This article discusses American Institute for International Steel v. the United States, which is pending in the little-known United States Court of International Trade in New York. It involves an attempt to declare that the US legislation delegating authority to the president to impose trade restrictions is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. A loss would legally curtail the president’s discretionary power to use national security as a reason to impose punitive measures against trading partners. The article identifies legal trends, where this case fits into the trade policy debates, and why it is so important. The article concludes that domestic US litigation in 2019 may well have a tremendous impact on US law and the global trading system. Many in the domestic and international trading communities (as well as those in the foreign policy and national security communities) are waiting for the results of this little-known steel litigation.

The US has invoked Article XXI of the GATT 1994 to justify its tariff measures on imports of steel and aluminum. However, the US’ tariff measures are not imposed for the protection of the US “essential security interests” but for economic and trade reasons. They do not satisfy the conditions listed under Article XXI (b) (i) to (iii) and should not be justified by them. They should not be considered as either national security measures or safeguard measures, but as ordinary trade restriction measures that are inconsistent with the WTO rules and the US obligations. A panel or the Appellate Body not only has the jurisdiction to review this dispute, but is also capable of making findings and providing a recommendation. Even if the US has the discretion to impose tariff measures under Article XXI (b), whether it has been acted in good faith, is still subject to the WTO review. As regards the tariff measures, the US has not acted in good faith.