Nucor Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
414 F.3d 1331 (2005)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
In June 2001, the president of the United States requested the International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate allegations of the dumping of imports of certain steel products. In September 2001, a number of domestic steel producers, including Nucor Corporation and United States Steel Corporation (plaintiffs), petitioned the ITC to conduct antidumping and countervailing-duty investigations for the same steel imports. Following the conclusion of the first investigation, the president imposed safeguard tariffs in March 2002 on those steel imports. The ITC continued its investigation into the petition and determined that the domestic industry was not being materially injured or threatened with material injury due to the existing tariffs. The ITC focused its analysis on the state of the market following the adoption of the safeguard tariffs by the president in March 2002. Because the ITC determined there was no present material injury, the ITC dismissed the petition. Nucor and United States Steel Corporation appealed to the Court of International Trade, which affirmed. Nucor and United States Steel Corporation then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.