Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
Opinions apply strict textual deadlines and specific statutory provisions over general regulations, as in the one-year certificate filing requirement under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) that could not be overridden by 19 C.F.R. § 10.112. Ford Motor Co. v. United States ↗ Ford Motor Co. v. United States ↗
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
Opinions treat Federal Circuit rulings as binding without reexamination, dismissing challenges once zeroing methodology was upheld in Union Steel and applying established standards of review without deviation. JBF Rak LLC v. United States ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
This case involved Digidesign, Inc.'s challenge to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's classification of its Control 24 and 002 Factory audio consoles under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Customs classified the imported machines as electrical machines and apparatus under subheading 8543.89.96 (later renumbered to 8543.70.96), carrying a 2.6% ad valorem duty. Digidesign argued for classification as units of automatic data processing machines under Heading 8471, which would have a 0% duty rate. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's, holding that the consoles' preamp, line sub-mixer, and control room monitoring functions meant they could not be classified under Heading 8471 pursuant to Chapter 84 Note 5(E) and instead fell under the residual provision of Heading 8543.
The case involved JBF RAK LLC challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results from an administrative review of antidumping duties on polyethylene terephthalate film from the United Arab Emirates, specifically Commerce's use of zeroing methodology to calculate duties. The plaintiff contended that this approach conflicted with earlier Federal Circuit precedents. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ruling that the Federal Circuit's decision in Union Steel v. United States had resolved the issue by upholding Commerce's authority to apply zeroing in administrative reviews based on contextual differences from investigations. The court determined that the precedent was binding and that the plaintiff had not adequately distinguished the case to allow review on the merits.
The case involved JBF RAK LLC's challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film from the United Arab Emirates for the period November 2010 through October 2011. JBF RAK raised multiple claims, including that Commerce unlawfully applied its targeted dumping methodology, improperly considered petitioners' allegations, issued an untimely post-preliminary determination, failed to account for certain pricing facts, misapplied its model matching rules, and unlawfully used its 15-day liquidation policy. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's final results in full. The court held that Commerce's determinations were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law under the applicable standard of review, and it deemed several arguments waived for failure to properly develop them under the Chevron framework or address contrary precedent.
The case concerned Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S.'s challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey for the period 2010-2011. Borusan disputed Commerce's determination that it had engaged in targeted dumping and Commerce's use of an average-to-transaction comparison methodology in calculating duties. The U.S. Court of International Trade reviewed the agency record under the substantial evidence standard and considered the statutory requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B). The court held that the statute does not mandate an inquiry into a respondent's intent or commercial justifications for pricing patterns, and it sustained the Nails test as a reasonable basis for finding targeted dumping. Accordingly, the court upheld Commerce's Final Results.
This case concerned Ford Motor Company's challenge to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of its NAFTA post-importation duty refund claims under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d), where Customs refused to waive the requirement to present certificates of origin that Ford had omitted when filing traditional claims (though Customs routinely waives the same requirement for claims filed through the Reconciliation Program). After the Federal Circuit remanded for an explanation of the differing waiver practices, Customs stated on remand that the disparity resulted from the reasonable application of two distinct statutory schemes governing the separate filing processes. The Court of International Trade reviewed the agency's interpretation under the Chevron framework and sustained Customs' Remand Results, concluding that the explanation constituted a permissible construction of the statute that preserved the port director's discretion to grant or deny waivers under the traditional process while allowing a centralized approach under reconciliation. The court therefore upheld the denial of Ford's claims.
The case concerned a motion for reconsideration filed by Consolidated Plaintiff Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group, Ltd. in a U.S. Court of International Trade proceeding challenging the Department of Commerce's antidumping duty determination for certain chemical imports from China. Commerce had assigned an above de minimis separate rate to Jiangsu and other separate-rate respondents by selecting the rate given to a non-cooperating mandatory respondent. The court previously upheld that approach based on the limited pricing data in the administrative record. Jiangsu argued that the court had overlooked quantity-and-value data and other information that would support a zero percent rate, but the court denied reconsideration. It held that Jiangsu was attempting to relitigate already-decided issues, that the statute does not automatically award the cooperating respondent's de minimis rate to separate-rate respondents, and that the record did not justify Jiangsu's proposed alternative calculation.