United States: DC District Court Upholds SEC's Conflict Mineral Due Diligence And Reporting Rule

Last Updated: August 13 2013
Article by Lucinda Low, Brittany Prelogar and Pierson W. Stoecklein

On July 23, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court) rejected an industry challenge to a rule (the Rule) issued in August 2012 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission), which implemented certain "conflict mineral" disclosure requirements mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank).1  Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank manifests Congress' intent to eliminate the minerals trade as a source of funding that, for decades, has enabled and perpetuated widespread armed violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and its neighboring countries.  Through Section 1502, Congress sought to accomplish this goal by amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)2 to require SEC registrants to make annual disclosures if they manufacture or contract for the manufacture of products that contain or are reasonably believed to contain certain "conflict minerals"-tin, tantalum, gold and tungsten- sourced from a covered country.3

The National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable (collectively, Plaintiffs) initially filed suit challenging the Rule with the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals (Circuit Court).  However, after the Circuit Court ruled in a separate case involving a similar challenge to an SEC rule implementing Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank that jurisdiction properly resided with the lower court,4 Plaintiffs requested transfer of the instant case to the District Court.  Proceeding on an expedited basis, the District Court heard summary judgment motions based on briefs filed in the Circuit Court involving multiple claims under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the US Constitution.  Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted that in issuing the Rule, the SEC disregarded its statutory obligations under the Exchange Act, that the rulemaking proceeding was arbitrary and capricious in multiple other respects, and that the public disclosures required by both the Rule and Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

In an extensive and detailed opinion summarized below, the District Court denied summary judgment sought by Plaintiffs, instead finding that the SEC pursued the rulemaking in a manner that was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that nothing about the Rule or the underlying statute infringed on Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.  Given the uncertain time frame and outcome of any appeal, SEC reporting companies would be well advised to forge ahead with efforts to implement conflict minerals compliance programs in anticipation of the May 31, 2014 deadline for the first disclosures, which will relate to the 2013 calendar year.

The SEC Complied with the Exchange Act and Properly Evaluated Costs and Benefits

The District Court began its examination with Plaintiffs' claim that the SEC abdicated its statutory responsibilities by failing to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis of the Rule's potential impacts.  In particular, Plaintiffs argued that the SEC improperly deferred to Congress's determination that conflict minerals disclosures would decrease violence in the DRC, rather than conducting an independent analysis of the social benefits of the rule, and arbitrarily underestimated aspects of the Rule's costs.  On this basis, Plaintiffs contended that the SEC violated Exchange Act Sections 3(f) and 23(a)(2) by failing to consider whether the Rule would "promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation" and would not "impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of" the Exchange Act.5

Expressing its disagreement on several grounds, the District Court preliminarily observed that it was not clear that the requirements in Exchange Act Sections 3(f) and 23(a)(2) even applied, since they were not expressly referenced in Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank, and Congress had already concluded the disclosure requirements were necessary and in the public interest.6  Further, assuming the cited statutory provisions applied, the District Court observed that they merely obligate the SEC to consider enumerated economic factors and permit but do not require it to weigh the costs and benefits of a proposed action.  Elaborating further, the District Court reasoned that neither case law nor the statutory text mandate that the SEC conduct a wide-ranging analysis to independently verify that the Rule actually would achieve the benefits Congress intended, particularly where such benefits are humanitarian in nature and not susceptible to quantification.  The court further noted that cases in which a rule has been invalidated based on the Commission's failure to satisfy the cited statutory obligations have involved "shortcomings on the Commission's part with respect to the economic implications of its actions."7

With respect to Plaintiffs' challenge to the SEC's analysis of the Rule's costs, the court cited multiple examples in the rulemaking record that it found illustrated the SEC's sufficient consideration of the Rule's impact on efficiency, capital formation, and competition.  Finally, the court concluded that, while Plaintiffs might disagree with the Commission's specific calculations of estimated costs and number of suppliers potentially affected, the wide range of estimates commentators submitted during the rulemaking process, and the Commission's efforts to strike an appropriate balance between those estimates, belied allegations that the SEC's analysis was arbitrary or unreasonable.8

The SEC Properly Exercised Its Discretion In Declining to Adopt a De Minimis Exception

In assessing the merits of the SEC's decision not to adopt an exemption for issuers that use only de minimis quantities of conflict minerals, the court considered two arguments advanced by Plaintiffs-(1) that the Commission improperly believed it was precluded from considering a de minimis exception and therefore was not entitled to Chevron deference during review, and (2) that even if the Commission believed the statute permitted it to make such an exception and that it was therefore exercising its discretion in refusing to adopt one, that decision was arbitrary and capricious.  In contrast to the determination reached in the parallel proceeding challenging Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank, the court here found no evidence clearly suggesting the SEC believed its interpretation of Section 1502 was compelled by Congress.  Accordingly, since the statute was silent as to the availability of a de minimis exception, the Commission's exercise of discretion in declining to adopt one was entitled to deference.  While acknowledging that the SEC's "explanation could have been more thorough in some respects," the District Court found that the SEC had appropriately weighed the input it received and concluded, based on its determination that conflict minerals are often used in minute amounts, that a de minimis exception would jeopardize the effectiveness of the Rule.9  Thus, the SEC's failure to adopt such an exemption was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Deference is Due-Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry, Inclusion of Issuers that Contract to Manufacture Products, and Adoption of Different Phase-In Periods

Plaintiffs also challenged as arbitrary and capricious the SEC's imposition of reporting requirements on issuers that, based on a reasonable country of origin inquiry, have reason to believe their conflict minerals "may have originated" (as opposed to "did originate") in a covered country; its application of the Rule both to companies that manufacture and contract to manufacture products containing conflict minerals; and its adoption of different transition periods for large and small issuers without sufficient regard to the interdependency of compliance challenges faced by such companies.  In each instance, the court determined that the SEC exercised its discretion based upon a permissible and reasonable construction of Section 1502.

The Disclosure Requirements Do Not Compel Speech in Violation of the First Amendment

In addition to claims advanced under the APA, the District Court considered Plaintiffs' assertion that the Rule and Section 1502 improperly compelled burdensome and stigmatizing speech in violation of the First Amendment.  The court focused on the constitutionality of requiring companies to post conflict minerals disclosures on their own public websites, rather than merely filing such reports with the Commission.  Based on the "commercial nature" of the disclosures as well as the SEC's determination that the disclosures were not aimed at preventing misleading or deceptive speech, the court applied "intermediate scrutiny" to the constitutional challenge.  Thereunder, a challenged regulation can survive on findings that the stated government interest is substantial, the regulation directly advances that stated interest, and there is a reasonable fit between the targeted objectives and the means chosen to achieve those objectives.

Recognizing Plaintiffs' concession that the government has a substantial if not compelling interest in the promotion of peace and security in the covered countries, the court focused its evaluation on the remaining elements.  Viewed together, these elements address whether the SEC ought to have proven a stronger cause-and-effect relationship between the implementation of the due diligence and reporting requirements and the likely outcome on the availability of funds for conflict minerals-based violence in the DRC.  The court's conclusion hinged on the "particularly deferential" review that applies at "the intersection of national security, foreign policy, and administrative law" and on the court's observation that covered companies have ample opportunity under the Rule to add qualifying comments and explanation to any public disclosure they may be required to make.  Thus, again, the court upheld the SEC's chosen methods and means.

Implications of the Decision

Unlike the District Court's decision in the parallel proceeding regarding Dodd-Frank Section 1504, the court addressed each of the major challenges raised by Plaintiffs to Section 1502.  Further, because the SEC generally maintained that it was exercising its discretion in interpreting Section 1502, its interpretations are accorded considerable deference under the Chevron standard of review.  As a result, Plaintiffs will face an uphill battle if they seek to further challenge the Rule on appeal.  The timeline for any such appeal is also uncertain. 

With this in mind, the initial conflict minerals compliance reporting obligations are fast approaching.  It is therefore prudent to assume that, absent Congressional intervention, the due diligence and reporting obligations set forth in Section 1502 and the implementing Rule are here to stay.  Issuers should expect to file their first conflict minerals disclosures with the SEC on or before May 31, 2014 for calendar year 2013, requiring potentially significant efforts before that time to conduct the reasonable country of origin inquiries and due diligence called for by the Rule. 

In the meantime, other authorities, including Canada and the European Union, are considering adopting their own conflict minerals disclosure regimes.  The scope of such regimes is not yet defined, nor is the extent to which SEC filings may be recognized under such regimes, raising the prospect of further compliance challenges on the horizon for multinational companies.


1. Nat'l Assoc. of Manufacturers v. SEC, No. 13-635, at 1 (D.D.C. Jul. 23, 2013).

2. Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank amended the Exchange Act by adding a new Section 13(p).

3. For a further description of the Rule, see Steptoe's prior advisory, " SEC Adopts Conflict Minerals Rule, Affecting Global Supply Chains in Many Sectors."

4. For a further description of this parallel Dodd-Frank challenge, see Steptoe's prior advisory, " DC District Court Vacates SEC's Extractive Issuer Disclosure Rule."

5. 15 U.S.C. § 78c(f); 15 U.S.C. § 78w(a)(2).

6. Nat'l Assoc. of Manufacturers v. SEC, No. 13-635, at fn15.

7.   Id. at 21 (emphasis added).

8. Id. at 23-27.

9. Id. at 34-35.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Brittany Prelogar
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions