Question

Due to threats by the president to set import quotas, the U.S. State Department negotiated directly with European and Japanese steel producers to limit their companies’ exports to the United States. No foreign government was party to the agreement. Although the president has express authority to limit imports by an act of Congress, this act required that he either hold public hearings through the Tariff Commission about setting import quotas or deal directly with foreign governments about limiting imports. The Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., felt that when Congress gave the president this express power, it preempted any other action by the president. They brought an action against the secretary of state to have the president’s agreement with private steel producers in Europe and Japan declared illegal. What should be the result of such an action? See Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Kissinger, 506 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Answer 1

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)

: In certain situations the president is endowed with the authority to impose sanctions against another nation and to impose restrictions during times of national emergencies. The President may impose sanctions, take assets and cancel contracts.

Constitutional provisions against IEEPA:

The government should not enact the law as in this case, the exercise of IEEPA causes harm to an individual or a firm and results in economic loss and the loss of employees.

Facts:

Depending on the rumors that the President is going to impose quotas on Steel imports in U.S, the State Government held private discussions with European Steel producers but the respective government representation was absent. Despite the fact that the president can impose restrictions on the imports under the IEEPA he needs to discuss the issue with other government agencies or hold public discussions. The steel companies brought an action against the Secretary of the State Government for holding private discussions with the steel manufacturers.

The action will bring in positive consequences for the steel manufacturers because the quota system can be lifted. This is because, the meeting held by the State Government with the steel manufacturers is not represented by their respective governments. Also the President has not briefed the public regarding the quota system, due to these reasons the action brought against the Secretary of the State will gain importance and the quota agreement the state government imposed on the steel manufacturers is invalid.