The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration over the Biden administration in a case involving steel tariffs.
The Court rejected an appeal by USP Holdings and other importers challenging Trump’s imposition of steel tariffs under Section 232 national security grounds.
“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 the impact would be felt not only economically but politically,” Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said.
While the tariffs have faced opposition for harming importers, the Biden administration has largely maintained them to avoid job losses in manufacturing states.
The Court’s decision not to take the case means lower court rulings upholding the tariffs stand.
“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 stated.
“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,” it added.
Beyond this, the Court is poised to issue rulings this term that could impact climate change lawsuits.
Several cases are challenging whether such suits alleging damages from greenhouse gas emissions must be governed by state or federal law.
Conservative groups argue they inherently involve issues crossing state lines and thus belong in federal courts under federal law as the Supreme Court has previously ruled.
“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,” former White House counsel Boyden 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.
“The 2nd Circuit in 2021 dismissed such claims outright in the 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,” Gray wrote.
“Three of these cases are now before the Supreme Court—the 3rd Circuit’s decision in Delaware v. BP America Inc., the 9th Circuit’s decision in Chevron Corp. v. San Mateo County, and the 10th Circuit’s decision in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. In order to reaffirm that climate change lawsuits are inherently subject to federal law and therefore belong in federal court, the energy companies in each case have asked the court to intervene and resolve both splits.”
Its decisions this term could deliver a blow to states and cities pursuing large damages from energy companies through state courts.
Read Also:
Bombshell Decision from Michelle Obama on 2024 Run
Former Border Chief Shreds Biden With 4 Simple Words
