Supreme Court Will Not Hear Gloves Gender/Tariff Rate Appeal

On October 4, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will not hear Totes-Isotoner Corporation’s challenge to higher tariff rates for men’s gloves, as opposed to gloves for women and children.

Totes Had Argued That Different Rates Based on Gender/Age Unconstitutional

In the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Totes had argued that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule unconstitutionally denies equal protection of the laws by imposing, without justification, a 14% ad valorem rate of duty on men’s seamed leather gloves, but only 12.6% on gloves of the same class for women and children.

CIT and CAFC Agreed Discrimination Claim Requires Showing of Intent

The CIT and the appeals court both ruled against Totes. The CIT held that Totes must show that Congress intended to discriminate to prove discrimination, and that otherwise, the mere existence of dissimilar treatment in the tariff schedule is not enough to demonstrate a violation of equal protection.

CIT and CAFC Decisions on Totes to Remain in Effect

With the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case, the CIT and appeals court Totes rulings will stand.

(According to Totes’ petition to the high court, 100 similar cases have been filed by other importers. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Totes is expected to have a "chilling effect" on their outcomes if they made similar legal arguments.)

(See ITT’s Online Archives or 02/10/10 news, 10021020, for BP summary of CAFC ruling that affirmed the CIT’s dismissal of Totes-Isotoner Gender/Age Discrimination Claim on Glove Duty Rates.)

(Supreme Court Order No. 09-1360)