Donald Trump Gets A Big Win From The Supreme Court In Tariffs Case

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against President Joe Biden’s administration in a steel tariff case, siding instead with the administration of former President Donald Trump.

USP Holdings argued that the Trump administration’s decision to implement the tariffs was incorrect in an appeal that lower courts rejected. The Biden administration mostly kept the current level of tariffs in place while arguing against USP Holdings and other steel importers who said the tariffs had hurt them.

“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 (pdf) filed with the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made important decisions about many issues facing the United States.

Not long ago, the nation’s highest court ruled against states that passed strict gun laws. The court also threw out President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive student loans because it violated the Constitution.

The court has a strong conservative majority because of former President Donald Trump, and that might play a huge role in the outcome of closely watched cases out of Texas and Florida.

The conservative legislatures in both states passed laws that strike at a major issue affecting all Americans. And, if Justice Clarence Thomas has his way, this case could change social media forever.

Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, signed a bill into law in 2021 that would “hold Big Tech accountable by driving transparency and safeguarding Floridians’ ability to access and participate in online platforms.”

Generally, the law says that Floridians can sue social media sites if they have been unfairly shut down. It also says that the attorney general can “bring action against technology companies that violate this law,” and it says that Big Tech can’t take down political candidates’ pages.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the victory wasn’t constitutional, saying, “Put simply, with minor exceptions, the government can’t tell a private person or entity what to say or how to say it.”

Texas passed its own law against social media censorship in 2021. This law essentially prohibits Big Tech from censoring opinions, especially those of conservatives. It also lets people who have been silenced or deplatformed go to court.

Rep. Briscoe Cain (R-Deer Park), who wrote the bill, said, “At this point, a small handful of social media sites drive the national narrative and have massive influence over the progress and developments of medicine and science, social justice movements, election outcomes, and public thought.”

“There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values,” Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott said after signing the bill into law, arguing that the law is meant to make social media companies stop bias against certain points of view and hold Big Tech companies responsible if they do start censoring content.

The 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals, on the other hand, upheld the Texas law, not the Florida law. “The implications of the [Big Tech] platforms’ argument are staggering,” the Court said in its opinion. Email providers, cell phone companies, and banks could close the accounts of anyone who emails, calls, or spends money to support a political party, candidate, or business that the platforms don’t like. Today, we say no to the idea that corporations can freely censor what people say under the First Amendment.

Even though the two laws are mostly the same, one federal court has thrown out Florida’s law and upheld Texas’ law.

The Supreme Court has agreed to look at both cases again to try to end the debate about Big Tech censorship for good.