In a remarkable display of agreement, President Joe Biden’s administration has chosen to back the steel tariffs put in place by former President Donald Trump, and the U.S. Supreme Court has concurred.
The Court dismissed an appeal by USP Holdings, which argued that the Trump administration had acted inappropriately when it enacted the tariffs. Consequently, the Biden administration has maintained these tariffs, which aim to defend national security and bolster American manufacturing jobs.
Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, expressed that the Biden administration acknowledges the potential repercussions of removing the tariffs without an alternative solution. Such repercussions could include job losses and plant closures in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, where the impact would be felt economically and politically.
Implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962, Trump’s tariffs allowed the president to limit the importation of goods considered vital for national security. The tariffs played a crucial role in promoting the domestic production of airplanes, ships, and military materials using U.S. steel. While the tariffs caused some tension with U.S. allies, many countries were exempt from the policy.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to reject USP Holdings Inc.’s appeal demonstrated strong support for the tariffs.
In addition, the Supreme Court is set to deliver important rulings this term that could reshape climate change lawsuits. As Boyden Gray, a former counsel to the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, described in a Fox News article, federal courts currently disagree on whether climate change lawsuits should be governed by state or federal law. The Supreme Court is expected to make the final decision.
Gray emphasized how the Supreme Court has consistently held that lawsuits involving air and water pollution crossing state lines must be determined under federal law. This prevents states and cities from imposing their environmental agendas on neighboring jurisdictions or encroaching on federal environmental laws, regulations, and international treaties.
The Supreme Court now faces cases where progressive states and cities are launching lawsuits, seeking billions of dollars for damages allegedly connected to past, present, and future climate change. These entities are attempting to utilize state law to circumvent the principle maintained by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Supreme Court has the chance to deal a significant blow this term to those trying to exploit laws to target large corporations under the pretext of “climate change,” Gray warned.
Overall, while President Biden may not typically receive support from conservatives, this rare moment of consensus between his administration and President Trump’s policies is noteworthy. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will continue to champion conservative values in its decisions.