Opinion ID: 2796396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: rewriting the statute

Text: The majority holds that to meet the support requirement, a producer’s ITC questionnaire responses must include a statement of “explicit” support. Maj. Op. at p. 11. The majority is careful not to hinge support on whether a specific box is checked or to explain what constitutes a statement of explicit support. The explicit support rule instead suggests that statements of explicit support may be found somewhere in the ITC questionnaire responses. I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ rewriting of the statute to require a statement of “explicit” support. The statute does not contain such a requirement, just as the statute does not mandate that a specific box be checked. To the contrary, the plain language of the statute on its face requires the producer to “indicate” support through questionnaire response. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against departing from the plain language of a statute. Schindler Elevator Corp. v. U.S. ex rel. Kirk, 131 S. Ct. 1885, 1891 (2011); Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 193–94 (1978). Under the majority opinion, the legal issue of whether a U.S. producer has indicated support through a questionnaire or litigation strategy and have nothing to do with whether a company supports the petition. 7 Indeed, Congress’s findings included in the statute strongly suggest that Congress intended that U.S. producers like Giorgio would receive distributions. Congress feared that domestic producers would lay off workers and would be reluctant to reinvest or rehire. See Pub. L. No. 106-387, §§ 1002. As described below, that is precisely what Giorgio alleges occurred here: the dumped imports forced it to lay off workers and threatened to put it out of business. 8 GIORGIO FOODS, INC. v. US turns on whether a statement of support is “explicit.” This new rule is nowhere in the statute.