INTERN. LABOR RIGHTS EDUC. & RESEARCH FUND v. Bush, Civ. A. No. 90-0728.

• Decision Date: 10 September 1990
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 90-0728.
• Citation: 752 F. Supp. 490
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. George BUSH, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

752 F. Supp. 490

INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. George BUSH, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 90-0728.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

September 10, 1990.

Terry Collingsworth, Los Angeles, Cal., Deborah C. Malamud, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.

Dennis G. Linder, Arthur R. Goldberg, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GESELL, District Judge.

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Court of International Trade (CIT) has exclusive jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiffs, invoking this Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, oppose. Defendants also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but with the agreement of plaintiffs, briefing on this issue has been deferred until the Court has resolved the initial jurisdictional dispute.

The 23 plaintiffs include many of the nation's largest labor unions and a number of human rights research and advocacy organizations. Seeking review under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, they sue the President of the United States, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Secretaries of State, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, and the Treasury, alleging that these officials have failed to enforce the worker rights provisions of the Generalized System of Preferences of the Trade Act of 1974 ("GSP"), 19 U.S.C. §§ 2462(b)(7), 2464(b), which require the President to deny "beneficiary developing country" status and accompanying trade benefits to any country not meeting certain worker rights standards. Plaintiffs request an order from the Court interpreting the GSP statute and compelling defendants to modify their procedures and immediately review all countries for compliance with worker rights standards.

Defendants assert that the CIT is the only proper forum for this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(2). That provision states in relevant part:

the Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for ...

(2) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue

...

Section 1581(i) gives the CIT broad jurisdiction over trade cases. See, e.g., Vivitar Corp. v. United States, 761 F.2d 1552 (Fed.Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1055, 106 S.Ct. 791, 88 L.Ed.2d 769 (1986). However, in enacting this legislation, "Congress did not commit to the Court of International Trade's exclusive jurisdiction every suit against the Government challenging customs-related laws and regulations." K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176, 188, 108 S.Ct. 950, 959, 99 L.Ed.2d 151 (1988). While the Court will not attempt to delineate the precise boundaries of the CIT's jurisdiction, in this instance the Court concludes that section 1581(i) does not provide the CIT with exclusive jurisdiction.

The House Report on the legislation that created section 1581(i) indicates that Congress intended to create "a comprehensive system of judicial review of civil actions arising from import transactions, utilizing the specialized expertise of the CIT.... Section 1581(i) granted the CIT jurisdiction over those actions which arise directly out of an import transaction and involve one of the many international trade laws." H.R.Rep. No. 96-1235, 96th Cong.2d Sess. 20, 33 reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News 3731, 3745.

The present action at this stage is not one arising from an import transaction, nor does it appear to require an application of the CIT's specialized expertise. Rather, plaintiffs seek APA review of procedures underlying the President's responsibilities to enforce the worker rights provisions of the...