{ "id": "98-102", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "98-102", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 103561, "date": "1998-02-10", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:56:14.142941", "title": "NAFTA Binational Panel System: Second Constitutional Suit Dismissed", "summary": "Chapter 19 of the NAFTA allows parties to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings\nto seek\nbinational panel review of final agency determinations in lieu of judicial review in the country in\nwhich the determination was made. Some have argued that the process violates the Appointments\nClause of the U.S. Constitution and possesses other constitutional defects. Federal law allows suits\nchallenging the constitutionality of Chapter 19 panels, but these may only be brought by parties to\na panel proceeding. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently\ndismissed a Chapter 19 constitutional challenge, holding that the plaintiff had failed to meet Article\nIII standing requirements (American Coalition for Competitive Trade v. Clinton, 129 F.3d 761\n(decided Nov. 14, 1997)). Separately, the plaintiff had conceded its failure to meet the statutory\nexhaustion requirement for filing such a suit, a requirement the court found to be constitutional as\nwell as typical of agency adjudication schemes.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/98-102", "sha1": "46121c7c753f419c62a612596f6c15e5b4a03159", "filename": "files/19980210_98-102_46121c7c753f419c62a612596f6c15e5b4a03159.pdf", "images": null }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/19980210_98-102_46121c7c753f419c62a612596f6c15e5b4a03159.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions", "Foreign Affairs" ] }