Slip Op. 18-

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SEVERSTAL EXPORT GMBH, and 

SEVERSTAL EXPORT MIAMI 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

COMMISSIONER KEVIN K. 

MCALEENAN, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

SECRETARY WILBUR L. ROSS, and 

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,

Defendants.

Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge

Court No. 18-00057

OPINION AND ORDER

[Motions to intervene denied] 

Dated: April 13, 2018 

Mark Lunn, David Wilson, and Sarah Hall, Thompson Hine LLP, of Washington, DC, for 

Plaintiffs Severstal Export GmbH and Severstal Export Miami Corp. 

Tara Hogan, Joshua Kurland, and Stephen Tosini, Commerical Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendants. 

Roger Schagrin, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, DC, for proposed DefendantIntervenor Steel Dynamics, Inc. 

Alan Price, Christopher Weld, Joshua Turner, and Maureen Thorson, Wiley Rein LLP, of 

Washington, DC, for proposed Defendant-Intervenor Nucor Corporation. 
Court No. 18-00057 Page 2 

Restani, Judge: Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”) and Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“SDI”) filed 

separate motions to intervene. See Nucor’s Amended Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 25 (“Nucor 

Amend. Mot.”); SDI’s Amended Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 33 (“SDI Amend. Mot.”).1 The 

court has jurisdiction over these motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), under which this action 

was initiated. The original versions of both motions did not include a separate pleading setting 

out the claims or defenses for which intervention was sought. Nucor’s Mot. to Intervene, ECF 

No. 20; SDI’s Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 23. See U.S. Ct. Int. Trade Rule 24(c)(1). These were 

subsequently amended to include answers to plaintiffs’ complaint. Answer of Proposed 

Defendant-Intervenor Nucor Corporation, ECF No. 26 (“Nucor Answer”); Answer of Applicant 

Defendant-Intervenor Steel Dynamics, Inc., ECF No. 34 (“SDI Answer”). Both Nucor and 

SDI’s motions, including the amended versions, were filed within 30 days of the March 22, 

2018, complaint. Complaint of Severstal Export GmbH and Severstal Export Miami Corp., ECF 

No. 5. Both motions are opposed by both plaintiffs and defendants. Nucor Amend. Mot. at 4; 

SDI Amend. Mot. at 4. 

Nucor is the United States’ largest domestic steel producer, with roughly 24,000 

employees, Nucor Amend. Mot. at 2, and SDI is likewise a large domestic steel producer, with 

roughly 7,400 employees, SDI Amend. Mot. at 2. Both seek to intervene of right under U.S. Ct. 

Int. Trade Rule 24(a)(2).2

 Nucor Amend. Mot. at 2–3; SDI Amend. Mot. at 1. Nucor, in the 

 

1

 The court previously denied these motions in regard to the preliminary injunction proceedings, 

via an oral order on March 29, 2018. See Order, ECF No. 37. This opinion concerns the 

disposition of these motions with regard to the remainder of this case. 

2

 (a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who 

 . . . 

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the 

action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or 
Court No. 18-00057 Page 3 

3 

alternative, also seeks permissive intervention under U.S. Ct. Int. Trade Rule 24(b)(1)(B).3

 See 

Nucor Amend. Mot. at 3. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j). 

 Both movants claim a similar interest in this case: that the tariff promulgated by 

Presidential Proclamations Nos. 9705 and 9711 be upheld, so that movants can enjoy the 

anticipated economic benefits. Nucor Amend. Mot. at 2–3; SDI Amend. Mot. at 2–3. See 

Proclamation No. 9705, 83 Fed. Reg. 11,625 (Mar. 8, 2018); Proclamation No. 9711, 83 Fed. 

Reg. 13,361 (Mar. 22, 2018) (collectively, the “Steel Tariff”). The only additional information 

which movants claim to be able to provide in support of this interest concerns the proprietary 

details of movants’ steelmaking operations. SDI Amend. Mot. at 3. Given the narrow range of 

review in this matter, the court does not find that additional information about movants’ 

steelmaking operations would materially aid in the resolution of questions of fact and law which 

are relevant to the disposition of this case. 

Movants also refer to testimony, which they provided when Commerce was preparing its 

report under 19 U.S.C. § 1862, and which suggests that the steel industry is threatened and that 

its health is a matter of national security. See Nucor Amend. Mot. at 2; SDI Amend. Mot. at 2–

3. This testimony, however, forms part of Commerce’s report, which is already before the court. 

 

impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately 

represent that interest. 

U.S. Ct. Int. Trade Rule 24(a)(2). 

3 “(b) Permissive Intervention. 

(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: 

 . . . 

(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of 

law or fact. 

U.S. Ct. Int. Trade Rule 24(b)(1)(B). 
Court No. 18-00057 Page 4 

See OFFICE OF TECH. EVALUATION, U.S. DEP’T OF COMMERCE, THE EFFECT OF IMPORTS OF STEEL 

ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY: AN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 232 OF THE TRADE 

EXPANSION ACT OF 1962, AS AMENDED, at App’x F, p. 12–15, 142–43 (Jan. 11, 2018). As 

described below, furthermore, movants’ legal arguments are indistinct from arguments already 

advanced by the government. The court thus concludes that existing defendants, particularly the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), as author of the study and report which 

concluded that the U.S. steel industry is threatened and which underpins the challenged Steel 

Tariff, will adequately represent movants’ interest in the economic benefits they expect to enjoy 

should the Steel Tariff remain in force.4

 

For similar reasons, and particularly taking into account that movants admit that both 

plaintiffs and defendants oppose these motions, the court concludes permissive intervention 

under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) is not warranted.5

 Considering the broad interests relied upon by Nucor, 

virtually any domestic steel producer could seek permissive intervention on similar grounds, 

which would unduly delay proceedings. See Vivitar Corp. v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 1415, 

1419, 7 C.I.T. 165, 169 (1984) (“Because of the potential for a vast number of applications for 

 

4

 To the extent movants claim an interest in preserving U.S. national security or the country’s 

general economic welfare, see Nucor Amend. Mot. at 2–3; SDI Amend. Mot. at 2–3, the court 

finds it even less likely that defendants, whose duty it is to safeguard the same, would not 

adequately represent these interests. Movants have provided no reason for the court to conclude 

otherwise. 

5

 To the extent SDI likewise sought permissive intervention, the following reasoning applies 

equally to any such application by SDI. Like Nucor, neither SDI’s Amended Motion nor its 

Answer advanced arguments materially different from those already brought by defendants. See 

SDI Amend. Mot. at 1–4; SDI Answer at 8 (“This Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. 

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs lack standing. 

Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe. Plaintiffs’ action is barred in whole or in part by the failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies.”).
Court No. 18-00057 Page 5 

5 

intervention by persons in the position of [movant], permitting intervention does not appear to be 

in the interest of judicial economy.”). Nucor has furthermore not indicated it will make any 

arguments distinct from those of the government.6

 

Nucor indicates that it intends to argue “that Plaintiffs’ claims are unreviewable, that the 

challenged action — i.e., the President’s Proclamation imposing a tariff on Plaintiffs’ imports —

is lawful, and that Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of that tariff against Plaintiffs is 

also lawful.” Nucor Amend. Mot. at 4. The government, however, has already advanced such 

arguments before the court. See Severstal Export, GmbH v. United States, Slip Op. 18-37, 2018 

WL 1705298, at *7–*10 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. 5, 2018); Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and, in 

the Alternative, Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 30, at 14–43. Likewise, the admissions and denials contained 

in Nucor’s Answer do not suggest an approach different from that of defendants. See generally 

Nucor Answer. As the court observed in Neo Solar Power Corp., “[a]lthough this defense and 

that of the government are the same, this defense belongs, in essence, to the government, not [the 

movant].” Neo Solar Power Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 16-60, 2016 WL 3390237, at *2 

(Ct. Int’l Trade June 17, 2016). 

Accordingly, whereas additional parties necessarily add time, effort, and expense to 

proceedings, see Crosby Steam Gage & Valve Co. v. Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Inc., 51 F. 

Supp. 972, 973 (D. Mass. 1943), Nucor’s participation will merely be duplicative. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2631(j)(2) (requiring the court to consider whether intervention would “unduly delay or 

prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties”). 

 

6

 As Nucor never filed a brief in support of its Motion to Intervene, the court looks to its 

Amended Motion and its Answer. 
Court No. 18-00057 Page 6 

For the reasons stated above, therefore, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Mot. to Amend SDI’s Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 33, is 

GRANTED. 

ORDERED that SDI’s Amended Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 33, is DENIED. 

ORDERED that Nucor’s Amended Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 25, is DENIED. 

 /s/ Jane A. Restani 

 Jane A. Restani, Judge 

Dated: April 13, 2018 

 New York, New York