Opinion ID: 664612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trade Acts

Text: 25 Viewing the Memorandum of Understanding as a trade agreement, the petitioner also protests that no bill implementing it was enacted into law, despite what the petitioner considers the requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, see 19 U.S.C. Secs. 2112(d) and 2191, and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, see id. Sec. 2903(a)(1)(C). 4 The petitioner does not explain why an accord between America and Mexico to recognize each other's CDLs is properly classified as a trade agreement. Without citing the relevant statutory provisions, the petitioner does hint at the fact that 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2906(5)(A) defines international trade to cover trade in services (including, presumably, transportation services, cf. id. Sec. 2114b(5)). But beyond this, the petitioner offers no argument at all as to why the CDL accord qualifies as a trade agreement. Indeed, apparently to buttress its position that the foreign affairs exception to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553 does not apply to the FHWA's implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner has backed away from the claim that the Implementing Rule relates to trade in transportation services. See Petitioner's Reply Brief at 4. If agreements to honor foreign CDLs are trade agreements, then so would be a wide range of agreements on comparable issues, such as ones addressed under the immigration laws. As petitioner offers no serious support for its contention, we proceed no further. See Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C.Cir.1983) (reasoning that in adversary system courts should decline to entertain asserted but unanalyzed claims the resolution of which might have far-reaching consequences); cf. Wheeler v. Sims, 951 F.2d 796, 804 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990) (It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do all the rest). 26 Finding the petitioner's remaining arguments equally unsubstantiated, we deny the petition. 27 So ordered.