Supreme Court Delivers A Big Win To Donald Trump.

Supreme Court Delivers A Big Win To Donald Trump.


The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the administration of former President Donald Trump over President Joe Biden’s administration in a case involving steel tariffs.

The Trump administration’s decision to enact the tariffs, according to USP Holdings, was improper, the company claimed in an appeal that was turned down by lower courts. The Biden administration argued against USP Holdings and other steel importers who claimed the tariffs had harmed them while largely maintaining the current level of tariffs.

“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.

Beyond that, the Supreme Court has been busy.
The Supreme Court appears poised to deliver rulings this term that could upend climate change lawsuits.

In an opinion piece for Fox News, Boyden Gray — who served as counsel to the vice president in the Reagan administration and as White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush — detailed how federal courts are struggling to agree on whether climate change lawsuits are governed by state or federal law, meaning the Supreme Court will likely decide for them.

“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 went on to note two other cases where progressive states and cities are now launching lawsuits demanding billions of dollars for damages allegedly related to past, present, and future climate change.

However, now they are attempting to cite state law to get around the point made by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Gray wrote:

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.

Related Posts

Two confirmed dead as planes collide mid-air at regional airport

Two people died after two small planes collided mid-air at Marana Regional Airport, Arizona, around 8:30 a.m. The crash involved a Cessna 172S and a Lancair 360…

Did A Mysterious Signal Precede The Shooting Of Charlie Kirk?

A viral video circulating online has left people stunned, questioning whether the shooting of Charlie Kirk at his Utah event was truly random—or something much darker. In…

Charlie Kirk Posted a Haunting Final Message Minutes Before His Death

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, 31, was shot dead while speaking at Utah Valley University. Just minutes before, he had posted online about the killing of Ukrainian refugee…

Why Was This Man Standing & Celebrating After Charlie Kirk Was Shot?

In the chaotic seconds after Charlie Kirk was shot, the room erupted into panic. Attendees ducked, scrambled for cover, and clutched their loved ones. But in the…

BREAKING: STUDENT SHOOTS CLASSMATES AT EVERGREEN HIGH SCHOOL – ONE DEAD, CHAOS ERUPTS

One person has died after a shooting at Evergreen High School in Colorado, where a student shot two other students and himself. Authorities say one victim is…

Did A Mysterious Signal Precede The Shooting Of Charlie Kirk?

Did A Mysterious Signal Precede The Shooting Of Charlie Kirk? A viral video circulating online has left people stunned, questioning whether the shooting of Charlie Kirk at…

Leave a Reply