The opinion is here. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Section 232 is unconstitutional. Here is a key part of the reasoning:
Most importantly for the challenge here, in Algonquin, the Supreme Court found that section 232 “easily” met the intelligible principle standard because
[i]t establishes clear preconditions to Presidential action[,] —[i]nter alia, a finding by the Secretary of the Treasury that an “article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” Moreover, the leeway that the statute gives the President in deciding what action to take in the event the preconditions are fulfilled is far from unbounded. The President can act only to the extent “he deems necessary to adjust the imports of such article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.” And §232(c),4 [a]rticulates a series of specific factors to be considered by the President in exercising his authority under § 232(b). In light of these factors and our recognition that “(n)ecessity . . . fixes a point beyond which it is unreasonable and impracticable to compel Congress to prescribe detailed rules . . . ,” we see no looming problem of improper delegation.
Algonquin, 426 U.S. at 559–60 (citation and footnote omitted). This court is bound by Algonquin.
...
To be sure, section 232 regulation plainly unrelated to national security would be, in theory, reviewable as action in excess of the President’s section 232 authority. See, e.g., Indep. Gasoline Marketers Council, Inc. v. Duncan, 492 F. Supp. 614, 620 (D.D.C. 1980) (holding that the President’s imposition of a gasoline “conservation fee” pursuant to section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act was not authorized by the statute). However, identifying the line between regulation of trade in furtherance of national security and an impermissible encroachment into the role of Congress could be elusive in some cases because judicial review would allow neither an inquiry into the President’s motives nor a review of his fact-finding. See George S. Bush & Co., 310 U.S. at 379–80; Florsheim Shoe Co. v. U.S., 744 F.2d 787, 796–97 (Fed. Cir. 1984). One might argue that the statute allows for a gray area where the President could invoke the statute to act in a manner constitutionally reserved for Congress but not objectively outside the President’s statutory authority, and the scope of review would preclude the uncovering of such a truth. Nevertheless, such concerns are beyond this court’s power to address, given the Supreme Court’s decision in Algonquin, 426 U.S. at 558–60.
There was also this separate opinion:
Katzmann, Judge, dubitante.1
1 “[E]xpressing the epitome of the common law spirit, there is the opinion entered dubitante – the judge is unhappy about some aspect of the decision rendered, but cannot quite bring himself to record an open dissent.” Lon Fuller, Anatomy of the Law 147 (1968). See generally Jason
Czarnezki, The Dubitante Opinion, 39 Akron L. Rev. 1 (2006)....
The question before us may be framed as follows: Does section 232, in violation of the separation of powers, transfer to the President, in his virtually unbridled discretion, the power to impose taxes and duties that is fundamentally reserved to Congress by the Constitution? My colleagues, relying largely on a 1976 Supreme Court decision, conclude that the statute passes constitutional muster. While acknowledging the binding force of that decision, with the benefit of the fullness of time and the clarifying understanding borne of recent actions, I have grave doubts. I write, respectfully, to set forth my concerns.
...
In the one trade case before the Court since Hampton where it was contended that the statute at issue constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Executive, the statute in question was the one before us now -- section 232. See Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976). In that case -- after a determination that foreign petroleum was being imported into the United States in such quantities and at such low costs as to threaten to impair national security by inhibiting the development of domestic production and refinery capacity -- the President imposed license fees upon the exporters in an effort to control imports pursuant to section 232. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and others brought suit, primarily making the narrow statutory claim that while section 232 authorized the
President to adjust the imports of petroleum and petroleum products by imposing quotas, the remedy that the President sought, import licensing fees, was not authorized by the statute. Id. at 556. They also argued that unless this construction was adopted, the Court would have to reach the constitutional question of whether section 232 was an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the President. Id. at 558–59. The Supreme Court opinion, as my colleagues note, not only decided (in favor the Federal Energy Administration) the statutory question as to whether licenses were permissible, but also reached the constitutional question. Referencing the “intelligible principle,” the Court ruled that “[e]ven if § 232(b) is read to authorize the imposition of a license fee system, the standards that it provides the President in its implementation are clearly
sufficient to meet any delegation doctrine attack.” Id. at 559.Of course, as a lower court, it behooves us to follow the decision of the highest court. It can also be observed that new developments and the record of history may supplement and inform our understanding of law. ...
...
In the end, I conclude that, as my colleagues hold, we are bound by Algonquin, and thus I am constrained to join the judgment entered today denying the Plaintiffs’ motion and granting the Defendants’ motion. I respectfully suggest, however, that the fullness of time can inform understanding that may not have been available more than forty years ago. We deal now with real recent actions, not hypothetical ones. Certainly, those actions might provide an empirical basis to revisit assumptions. If the delegation permitted by section 232, as now revealed, does not constitute excessive delegation in violation of the Constitution, what would?
Summing up, it sounds like the Court was sympathetic to the plaintiffs' argument, but saw itself as bound by the Supreme Court decision in Algonquin. I haven't heard anything official, but I suspect we will see an appeal, and eventually the Supreme Court can weigh in all of this.
UPDATE: Looks like an appeal is coming.
