A recent decision reported by Conservative Brief on December 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with former President Donald Trump in a case involving steel tariffs, a move contested by President Joe Biden’s administration.
The case centered around USP Holdings, Inc. and other steel importers, arguing that Trump’s tariffs were unjust and had negative consequences. Despite the Biden administration’s opposition to these importers, existing tariff levels were mostly maintained.
USP Holdings and fellow importers sought a legal ruling declaring Trump’s tariff imposition as unlawful, citing the tariffs’ indefinite duration as a violation of the law. The Trade Court favored the government’s position, leading to USP filing an unopposed motion, subsequently granted by the court.
More Read
The Supreme Court rejected a petition by USP Holdings, Inc., challenging the Trump administration’s Section 232 tariffs on steel imports. Trump had justified these tariffs under the Trade Act of 1962, citing national security concerns.
The Biden administration, while not resuming talks on a U.S.-U.K. free trade agreement, initiated new discussions on Atlantic trade. Concerns about economic and political impacts in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio have influenced the administration’s cautious approach to lifting steel tariffs.
The Supreme Court’s decision in USP Holdings Inc. v. United States (court file 22-565) was without dissenting opinions or explanations. The order, unsigned, marked a setback for those opposing the steel tariffs.
In a related development, special counsel Jack Smith has filed charges against Trump in a federal election interference case, with a lower court decision allowing the government to pursue charges. Trump’s legal team may view a potential trial postponement, based on Supreme Court proceedings, as a strategic move leading up to the 2024 election.
Trump, currently the Republican front-runner, faces charges in another case related to the alleged mishandling of sensitive documents, adding complexity to the legal landscape as the March 4 trial date approaches.
