Throughout his time in the White House, Donald Trump, a wealthy businessman, devoted his position to ensuring that the United States’ worldwide commercial interests are protected. Trump levied tariffs on foreign items that bolstered U.S. firms, resulting in favorable economic repercussions for our nation.
The Biden administration has, for the most part, maintained the tariffs and argued against USP Holdings and other steel importers who claimed the duties caused them harm. Businesses that import to the United States fought against steel tariffs that would negatively impact their import operations, and this argument has now reached the Supreme Court.
USP Holdings appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts rejected its allegation that the Trump administration behaved unlawfully when it implemented the tariffs, Yahoo reported.
In a lawsuit involving steel tariffs, President Joseph Biden’s administration took the side of former President Donald Trump’s administration, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
“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.
Both the present government and the SCOTUs have upheld Trump’s actions, highlighting the sound rationale President Trump employed when he imposed the tariffs.
According to Conservative Brief, the Supreme Court is prepared to issue opinions this term that might derail climate change cases.
Fox News’ Boyden Gray explains:
“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 continues by stating that two more instances where progressive states and localities are initiating lawsuits demanding billions of dollars for damages supposedly tied to past, present, and future climate change use state law to avoid the point made by the late Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The 2nd Circuit in 2021 dismissed such claims outright in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. There, New York City sued a handful of energy companies under state law for damages allegedly caused by climate change. The court concluded that “over a century” of Supreme Court precedent makes clear that federal law necessarily applies to lawsuits relating to air pollution that crosses state lines, which includes greenhouse-gas emissions. Following AEP, the Second Circuit dismissed the case.
The Supreme Court is now considering three of these cases: Delaware v. BP America Inc., Chevron Corp. v. San Mateo County, and Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. The energy corporations in each case have petitioned the court to intervene and address both divides, reiterating that climate change cases are intrinsically controlled by federal law and hence belong in federal court.
Gray cautioned that the Supreme Court has the power to deal a crushing blow to liberals and anyone attempting to exploit legislation to “stick it” to large corporations in the name of “climate change” during this term.