The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump Administration’s steel tariffs, which President Joe Biden’s administration opposed.
USP Holdings had argued that the imposition of tariffs was illegal, but lower courts rejected their appeal.
Despite opposing USP Holdings and other steel importers who said the tariffs had negatively impacted them, the Biden administration largely kept them at their existing levels.
“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, 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 filed with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is set to deliberate on whether to accept petitions from defendants accused in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, which could potentially affect the criminal prosecutions of President Donald Trump.
The defendants are asking for dismissal of an indictment that charged them with obstructing an official proceeding at the United States Capitol when Congress was unable to certify Joe Biden’s victory due to rioters storming the building.
On Friday, justices will meet for their semi-annual private conference to discuss reviewing oral arguments from Edward Lang, Joseph Fischer, and Garrett Miller.
These defendants have petitioned for a decision on whether Section 1512 (c)(2) of the US Code should be used in prosecuting them – a disagreement which could impact “hundreds of cases,” according to Lang’s defense attorney.
If accepted by the court, this case could delay hearing of oral arguments until spring or even June 2021; four votes are needed from the nine-member court in order for a review.
However, if rejected by the court, any earlier lower court decisions would stand and remain in effect.
Trump’s legal team may view the approval of the petition as an authorization to request a delay in his election interference trial, which is due to start on March 4th, just before many states select their Republican nominee for the upcoming presidential election in November.
As the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Trump stands to benefit from a postponement of proceedings since, if he should win in 2024, any charges against him in two federal cases could be dismissed.
Additionally, he is facing charges connected with alleged improper handling of private documents; it is possible that he could be convicted prior to the election if the D.C. hearings take place as scheduled.