Must a federal court defer to the President's interpretation of the Trade Expansion Act's procedural requirements for imposing tariffs unless the President's actions were clearly or explicitly unlawful?

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 delegates Congress’s constitutional power to set duties on foreign imports into the United States (or to otherwise limit them) when the Secretary of Commerce finds and the President agrees that imports “threaten to impair the national security.” 19 U.S.C. § 1862(¢)(1)(A)di), (d). The President must “determine the nature and duration of the action” that he will take “[w]ithin 90 days after receiving” a “report” from the Secretary of Commerce’s “investigation.” 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b), (c)(1)(A). In 2018, President Trump invoked the Act to impose tariffs on imports of steel mill products—items like rods, tubes, and ingots of steel. More than two years later, he imposed new tariffs on certain products derived from steel (e.g., nails and automotive parts) without any new investigation or report by the Secretary. The Federal Circuit upheld the derivative-product tariff by deferring to the President’s interpretation of Section 232’s procedural requirements. The question presented is: Must a federal court defer to the President’s interpretation of the Trade Expansion Act’s procedural requirements for imposing tariffs unless the President’s actions were clearly or explicitly unlawful? (ii)