Constitutional Law - Court of International Trade Holds Article III Standing Not Required to Intervene in Existing Litigation - Canadian Wheat Board V. United States

Suffolk University Law Review, Fall 2010 | Go to article overview

Constitutional Law - Court of International Trade Holds Article III Standing Not Required to Intervene in Existing Litigation - Canadian Wheat Board V. United States


Constitutional Law--Court of International Trade Holds Article III Standing Not Required to Intervene in Existing Litigation--Canadian Wheat Board v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

Article III of the United States Constitution (Article III) explicitly limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to deciding only "cases" and "controversies." (1) Although the United States Supreme Court has interpreted Article III as implicitly requiring prospective parties to establish a basis for standing, it has provided no clear guidance as to what standing is constitutionally required of nonparties seeking to intervene in an existing litigation. (2) In Canadian Wheat Board v. United States, (3) the Court of International Trade considered whether a party seeking to intervene in an existing lawsuit must independently satisfy the standing requirements of Article III. (4) The Court of International Trade held that where a valid case or controversy exists between the remaining parties, an intervenor need not provide an independent basis for standing under Article III. (5)

The Canadian Wheat Board trio of decisions encompassed an international dispute between the United States and Canada over the imposition of import duties for alleged trade violations. (6) In 2002 and 2003, the United States Department of Commerce (Department) and the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) investigated the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and concluded that the CWB was causing material injury to the domestic wheat industry by illegally selling subsidized wheat products for less than market value. (7) As a result, the Department issued Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD) orders against the CWB, imposing higher, punitive trade duties on all CWB wheat entries, past and present. (8) Although the Department revoked the AD/CVD orders in early 2006 when a NAFTA panel overturned the ITC's affirmative material injury determination, the Department refused to refund the trade duties imposed on those entries made prior to the revocation's effective date. (9)

On May 2, 2007, the Court of International Trade granted the CWB's request to enjoin further liquidation of its pre-2006 wheat entries until the issue of the contested trade duties could be resolved judicially. (10) In the subsequent lawsuit, the Court of International Trade granted summary judgment for the CWB, holding the refunding of such punitive trade duties proper where the basis for their imposition is invalidated. (11) At that time, the court also dismissed the Canadian government's claims as lacking requisite standing under Article III. (12) On September 1, 2009, on reconsideration of its previous holding, the Court of International Trade determined that, because a valid case or controversy existed between the United States and the CWB, the governments of Canada could properly intervene even though they lacked an independent basis for standing under Article III. (13)

As codified in Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 24), the ability of a nonparty to intervene in an existing lawsuit is a relatively recent legal development. (14) Rule 24 authorizes: (l) intervention of right by a party with an interest in the property or transaction at issue in the litigation, or (2) permissive intervention, at the court's discretion, where a party has a claim or defense in common with the main action. (15) From a policy standpoint, Rule 24 seeks to protect the interests of nonparties from adjudication without their participation, and to promote judicial efficiency by allowing for the resolution of an entire dispute in a single court action. (16) Generally, Article III requires that any party seeking redress before a federal court first establish a basis for its standing. (17) Nowhere in Rule 24, however, are prospective intervenors explicitly required to establish such a constitutional basis for standing. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Constitutional Law - Court of International Trade Holds Article III Standing Not Required to Intervene in Existing Litigation - Canadian Wheat Board V. United States
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.