Legal Opinion

Rack Room Shoes v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided June 12, 2013No. 2012-1391, 2012-1392, 2012-1439PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

In this case, we once again are faced with the question of what facts an importer must plead to state a claim that a tariff rate in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) violates equal protection. Importers Rack Room Shoes (“Rack Room”), Skiz Imports LLC (“Skiz”), and Forever 21, Inc. (“Forever 21”) (collectively, “Importers”) brought suit in the Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) alleging that various classifications in the HTSUS discriminated on the basis of age or gender in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. bell/heery v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
  2. Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
  3. Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  4. Jacobs Technology Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  5. Kant v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API