In a surprising move, the Biden administration has aligned with the Trump administration’s stance on steel tariffs, and the U.S. Supreme Court has backed this decision. The Court refused to hear an appeal from USP Holdings, which argued that the Trump administration acted improperly when implementing these tariffs. Lower courts had already rejected this claim. The Biden administration has largely maintained these tariffs and opposed USP Holdings and other steel importers who claimed the tariffs harmed them, as reported by the Epoch Times.
Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, explained the reasoning behind this decision, stating:
“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.”
When Trump enacted the tariffs, he defended them by saying:
“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good and easy to win.” He continued, “For example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore—we win big. It’s easy!”
The former president invoked Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962 to impose these tariffs, as it allows the president to restrict imports of goods essential to national security. Trump argued that the tariffs were necessary to support the production of U.S. steel for airplanes, ships, and military materials. This decision created tensions with some U.S. allies, but several countries were exempted from the policy.
The Supreme Court declined the USP Holdings Inc. v. United States petition in an unsigned order without explanation, and no justices dissented. In 2017, then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross initiated an investigation to determine whether steel imports threatened national security. Ross’s 2018 report concluded that domestic steel production was crucial for national security and that excessive imports weakened the U.S. economy, thereby impairing national security.
In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with a deaf student who sued his public school system for not providing an adequate education. This case could prompt significant change nationwide as other disabled students claim they were let down by school officials.
The case involves Miguel Luna Perez, a public school student in Sturgis, Michigan. Perez’s lawyers argued that the school system neglected him for 12 years and deceived his parents about his progress, permanently hindering his ability to communicate. The Supreme Court ruled that after settling a complaint against the school system, Perez and his family could pursue monetary damages under a different federal law.
WATCH the video below for more details:
Perez’s case centered on the school system’s failure to provide him with a qualified aide, resulting in isolation and communication difficulties. The school reportedly inflated his grades, giving his parents the false impression that he would graduate on time. However, just before graduation, they were informed that he only qualified for a “certificate of completion.”
The school district eventually settled one of the claims, agreeing to pay for additional schooling and sign language instruction for Perez and his family. Afterward, the family sought monetary damages in federal court.
Sources: ConservativeBrief, EpochTimes, PBS,
