The U.S. Supreme Court ruled with the administration of former President Donald Trump over President Joseph Biden’s administration in a case involving steel tariffs.
The Trump administration’s decision to implement the tariffs, according to USP Holdings, was unlawful, the company said in an appeal that was turned down by lower courts. The Biden administration battled against USP Holdings and other steel importers who claimed the tariffs had harmed them while mostly maintaining the current level of duties.
“The Biden administration understands that simply lifting steel tariffs without any solution in place, particularly beyond the dialogue, could well mean layoffs and plant closures in Pennsylvania and in Ohio and other states where obviously the impact would be felt not only economically but politically,” Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said.
“Trump cited Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962, which permits the president to impose restrictions on the importation of goods deemed essential to national security. He said at the time that the tariffs were needed to bolster the production of airplanes, ships, and military materials with U.S. steel. The tariffs created tension with some U.S. allies, although some countries were exempted from the policy,” the report added.
“The Supreme Court turned away the petition in USP Holdings Inc. v. United States, court file 22-565, in an unsigned order. The court didn’t explain its decision. No justices dissented from the order. In April 2017, then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross commenced an investigation to determine whether “steel was being imported under such circumstances as to threaten or impair national security,” according to the petition (pdf) filed with the Supreme Court,” it continued.
The Supreme Court has also been very active.
This term, the Supreme Court seems prepared to issue decisions that might fundamentally alter climate change lawsuits.
Boyden Gray detailed how federal courts are unable to agree on whether climate change lawsuits are subject to state or federal law in an opinion piece for Fox News. As a result, the Supreme Court will probably make the decision. Boyden Gray previously served as counsel to the vice president during the Reagan administration and as White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush.
“For over a century, the Supreme Court has held that lawsuits over air (and water) pollution that crosses state lines must be decided under federal law. This means overreaching states and cities cannot impose their environmental agendas on their neighbors or otherwise hijack the domain of federal environmental law, federal regulations, and international treaties,” Gray wrote.
“The Supreme Court unanimously extended this principle in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (AEP). That case, decided in 2011, involved federal-law claims by eight states, New York City, and others to compel certain power companies to abate their greenhouse-gas emissions. In an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court concluded that applying federal law was appropriate, then agreed with the Obama administration that those claims couldn’t proceed in court at all because Congress has delegated the regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act,” he added.
Gray continued by pointing up two further instances when progressive states and towns have filed lawsuits seeking billions of dollars for losses allegedly caused by past, present, and future climate change.
To avoid the objection raised by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they are now attempting to cite state law.