Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States

517 F.3d 1319 (2008)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
517 F.3d 1319 (2008)

Facts

In 1992, the United States (defendant), Canada (plaintiff), and Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Section 102(c) of the United States’ NAFTA Implementation Act (NIA) provided that only the United States had a cause of action under NAFTA or “by virtue of Congressional approval.” Section 408 provided that amendments to antidumping statutes would not apply to goods from NAFTA signatories unless the amendments so stipulated. The NIA was passed in a congressional fast-track process. In 2000, Congress passed the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), requiring antidumping duties to be paid to domestic producers affected by dumping. The CDSOA did not stipulate that it applied to Canada and Mexico. Nine countries, including Canada, successfully challenged the CDSOA as a violation of international agreements before the World Trade Organization. Congress repealed the CDSOA, effective in 2007. However, United States customs had collected antidumping duties on Canadian lumber, magnesium, and wheat imports for 2003, 2004, and 2005 and redistributed these funds to domestic producers. Canada, Canadian producers (plaintiffs), and the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) (plaintiff), which sold wheat, challenged the redistributions in the Court of International Trade. The CWB’s claim to injury was that subsidies were received by the North Dakota Wheat Commission (Dakota), which promoted but did not sell wheat. The suit was based on § 408 and on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which gave those adversely affected by unlawful agency actions a cause of action unless a relevant statute barred judicial review. The court found that the CWB had standing under Article III of the United States Constitution because Dakota’s activities helped reduce the market share of Canadian wheat. The court recognized that the Canadian producers and the CWB had a cause of action under the APA, but the producers’ claims were later found to be moot. The court held that the United States had unlawfully applied the CDSOA to Canadian goods and enjoined the United States from redistributing further funds.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Michel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership