Supreme Court Denies Hearing to Another Case on Tariff Schedule Gender Discrimination
The Supreme Court declined to hear another case on gender discrimination by duty rates in the tariff schedule, denying certiorari in a challenge filed by Rack Room, Forever 21 and Skiz Imports. A 2013 ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissing the case will now stand. The case is the second tariff gender discrimination lawsuit that the Supreme Court has rejected. The high court in 2010 had denied certiorari to a challenge from Totes-Isotoner to duty rates on gloves. Totes-Isotoner’s appeal also failed because it didn’t convince the court that Congress intended to discriminate.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In this case, Rack Room argued that Congress’ intent to discriminate manifested itself in the fact that Congress chose to set different duty rates for men’s, women’s and children’s apparel. They could have chosen other criteria for setting tariff rates, but decided not to, it said. The Federal Circuit dismissed the case in December, finding Rack Room failed to show discriminatory purpose (see 13061302). Rack Room’s argument that it “need not show a discriminatory purpose because nondiscriminatory alternatives are available,” would “eviscerate” the requirement to show congressional intent in Equal Protection cases, said CAFC.
In its petition for Supreme Court hearing, Rack Room had argued that a requirement for evidence of discriminatory intent would set too high of a bar (see 13121901). The legislative record often gives little detail, said Rack Room, particularly at times where Congress may be trying to hide discriminatory intent.