Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶317

The Court analyzed the statutory text and found “no support in the language of the statute” for the plaintiffs' argument that “adjust the imports” should “be read to encompass only quantitative methods—i. e., quotas—as opposed to monetary methods—i. e., license fees—of effecting such adjustments.” Ibid. The Court further explained: “Unless one assumes, and we do not, that quotas will always be a feasible method of dealing directly with national security threats posed by the circumstances under which imports are entering the country, limiting the President to the use of quotas would effectively and artifcially prohibit him from directly dealing with some of the very problems against which § 232(b) is directed.” Id., at 561–562 (quotation marks omitted).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.