October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1434
Does the Harmonized Tariff Schedule bind the government?
The government and Mead Corp. dispute the legal force of tariff classifications.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Kent Jones argued the schedule contains over 9,000 categories. He noted it uses half a million words. He stated it classifies all conceivable articles of commerce. He emphasized the international commission drafted the document. He confirmed the United States enacted it as law in 1988.
J. Peter Coll argued on behalf of the opposing side. He addressed the Chief Justice directly. He identified himself as representing Mead Corp.
Chief Justice Rehnquist opened the session. He identified the case number. He called the side that brought the case's counsel to the podium. He closed the session by stating the case was submitted.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-19
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The government and Mead Corp. dispute the legal force of tariff classifications.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-19
What each side wants
The government seeks to treat the schedule as non-binding.
Mead Corp. seeks to treat the schedule as binding law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What each side says
The government argues the schedule lacks statutory force.
Mead Corp. argues the schedule is enacted law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-19
Why it matters
This dispute defines the legal status of tariff classifications. It affects how the government applies trade rules. It impacts how companies classify goods for import.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-19
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.