The Trump administration has made no secret of its support for fair trade policies that uphold the interests of American manufacturers and raw materials producers. Its efforts to enact import duties — tariffs — under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 have earned praise from top advocates for fair trade, like Majestic Steel president and CEO Todd Leebow.
Of course, the Trump administration’s trade policies don’t enjoy universal support. As in most political matters these days, Section 232 tariffs in general and steel and aluminum duties in particular attract lively conversation on both sides of the issue. Precisely how you feel about the administration’s trade policies around imported metals depends on where you sit and whether you stand to benefit directly from their imposition.
However you feel about import duties, though, it’s worth marking a significant milestone in the administration’s effort to protect domestic industries critical to the country’s economic security and self-sufficiency. Amid lingering debate about the legality of certain aspects of the Trump administration’s trade policy, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant and perhaps decisive victory to its proponents when it declined this spring to hear a challenge to the tariffs’ legality.
Let’s take a closer look at just what happened this spring and why it might matter to you.
The Backstory
Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the Trump administration was within its rights to impose steel tariffs under Section 232. Initially imposed in March 2018, those tariffs attached a 25% duty to imported steel.
The court’s ruling was swiftly appealed by lawyers representing the American Institute for International Steel, a trade organization whose membership includes high-volume steel importers. According to Politico, the plaintiffs argued “that Section 232 was far too open-ended and allowed the president to make a decision without any check from Congress or a requirement for judicial review.”
The justices didn’t buy it. Barely one month later, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing the U.S. Court of International Trade’s ruling to remain in effect.
What May Happen Next
The Supreme Court decision gives the Trump administration leeway to continue executing its steel and aluminum import policy. However, a new, potentially more consequential challenge may soon arise.
According to Politico, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, is mulling legislation that could hinder the power of President Trump (and future presidents) to impose tariffs under Section 232. Should Grassley’s legislation become law, it could represent a sea change in U.S. trade policy. For the American steel industry, the ramifications could be significant.
Deferred, Not Settled
What does the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs mean for the average U.S. consumer? For small businesses that rely on U.S.-made steel and aluminum? For service businesses whose fortunes rise or fall, however indirectly, with these commodities?
For now, it means the continuation of the status quo — a rare dose of predictability in an increasingly uncertain economy.
But, if folks like Senator Grassley have anything to say about it, the Supreme Court’s decision won’t be the last word on the matter. If you have an interest in the administration’s trade policy — as most Americans do, directly or otherwise — then you’d to well to keep paying attention.
