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 addition, the Supreme Court has been active.

The Supreme Court has ruled that companies can sue unions for strike-related financial damages, dealing a crushing rebuke to unions, a Democratic Party stronghold.

On Thursday, the court ruled in favor of a Washington concrete company seeking to resurrect its lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which allegedly damaged its product.

“The 8-1 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett means the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can pursue a lawsuit against the union in state court over an August 2017 strike in which drivers walked off the job, leaving wet concrete in their trucks. Barrett, one of the court’s six conservatives, wrote that a state court was wrong to dismiss the claims at such an early stage in proceedings based on its concern that the claims conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a federal law that protects union activity,” NBC News reported.

“Because the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier’s property rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk, the NLRA does not arguably protect its conduct,” she said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Joe Biden, was the sole justice to dissent, stating that the decision “risks erosion of the right to strike.”

She stated that by siding with the company, the court “intervenes in this conflict, proceeding to render an opinion on the legality of the union’s strike activity.”

“This case is Exhibit A as to why the board — and not the courts — should ordinarily take the first crack at resolving contentious, fact-bound labor disputes of this nature,” she said.

More on this story via Conservative Brief:

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley explained the decision in a thread on Twitter. CONTINUE READING…