The administration of President Joe Biden sided with the administration of former President Donald Trump in a steel tariffs case, and the U.S. Supreme Court concurred.

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by USP Holdings, which had been rejected by lower courts, alleging that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it imposed tariffs. The Biden administration has, for the most part, maintained the tariffs and argued against USP Holdings and other steel importers who claimed the tariffs caused them harm.

“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.

In a separate case this week, the Supreme Court ruled against the radical left climate agenda of President Joe Biden in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency’s broad authority claims.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, stated that the agency’s congressional mandate does not grant it the authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate wetland areas near certain bodies of water, as asserted by the agency.

CBS News reported that the Supreme Court’s ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had sided with the EPA.

“The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear,” Alito wrote. “Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by E.P.A. employees as wetlands covered by the act, and according to the federal government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the lone conservative dissenter, agreeing with the court’s liberals that the ruling would hinder the EPA’s ability to combat pollutants.

“By narrowing the act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States,” Kavanaugh explained.

The ruling follows a decision by the Supreme Court last year that similarly limited the agency’s legal authority to address climate change issues.

In a distinct concurring opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan drew a connection between the two cases and criticized the court’s self-appointed role as the final arbiter of national environmental policy.

Kagan argued that the majority’s approach hinders not only the EPA’s ability to effectively regulate adjacent wetlands, but also the agency’s previous efforts to control power plant emissions in order to combat climate change.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency involved Idaho residents Michael and Chantell Sackett, who wanted to construct a home on a residential lot near Priest Lake in the state’s panhandle.

More on this story via Conservative Brief:

The agency issued an order to the couple, directing them to cease their construction activities and restore the property to its original state, accompanied by the threat of high fines. However, instead of complying with the order, the Sacketts opted to file a lawsuit against the agency. CONTINUE READING…