Guess Which Political Rivals Unite in a Supreme Court Decision, It’s Almost UNBELIEVABLE

In an unexpected move, President Joe Biden’s administration has chosen to back the steel tariffs implemented by former President Donald Trump, with the U.S. Supreme Court concurring. The Court rejected an appeal by USP Holdings, which claimed that Trump’s administration had acted improperly in enacting the tariffs.

As a result, the Biden administration has maintained these tariffs, which were designed to safeguard national security and promote American manufacturing employment.

Alliance for American Manufacturing President Scott Paul stated that the Biden administration recognizes the potential consequences of lifting the tariffs without any alternative solution in place. These consequences could include layoffs and plant closures in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, where the impact would be felt both economically and politically.

Trump’s tariffs were introduced under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962, allowing the president to restrict the import of goods considered essential for national security.

The tariffs contributed to the domestic production of airplanes, ships, and military materials using U.S. steel. Despite causing tension with some U.S. allies, several countries were exempted from the policy.

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny USP Holdings Inc.’s appeal was unanimous, indicating strong support for the tariffs.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court is poised to make significant rulings this term that could affect climate change lawsuits. As Boyden Gray, a former counsel to the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, explained in a Fox News article, federal courts are currently divided on whether climate change lawsuits should be governed by state or federal law. The Supreme Court is likely to resolve this issue.

Gray discussed how the Supreme Court has historically ruled that lawsuits involving air and water pollution crossing state lines must be determined under federal law. This prevents states and cities from imposing their environmental agendas on neighboring jurisdictions or infringing on federal environmental laws, regulations, and international treaties.

Now, the Supreme Court faces cases in which progressive states and cities are pursuing lawsuits, seeking billions of dollars for damages allegedly linked to past, present, and future climate change. These entities are attempting to use state law to bypass the principle maintained by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to deal a significant blow this term to those attempting to manipulate laws to target large corporations under the guise of “climate change,” Gray cautioned.

In summary, although President Biden may not typically garner support from conservatives, it is encouraging to witness this rare instance of agreement between his administration and President Trump’s policies. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will continue to defend conservative values in their rulings.