Court Opinion

ID: 9806405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:01:38.129105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:05:00.623520
License: Public Domain

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I continue to believe, as discussed in my concurrence in Guangdong Wireking Housewares v. United States, 745 F.3d 1194, 1209-11 (Fed.Cir.2014) (O’Malley, J., concurring in the result), that Pub.L. No. 112-99, 126 Stat. 265 (2012) (“the Act”), did not effect a retroactive change in the law. GPX challenges the retroactive application of the Act under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because GPX does not challenge the prospective application of the Act, and because, in my view, the Act does not operate retroactively, I do not believe we need to consider whether the Act violates the Due Process Clause. Because we are bound by the determination in Guangdong that the Act does apply retroactively, I agree with the majority that we must proceed to consider the due process .question. And I agree with the majority that Congress had a rational basis upon which to justify retroactive application of the Act.