Skip to main content

International Business U.S. Supreme Court turns away challenge to Trump steel tariffs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs on imported steel brought by an industry group that argued that a key part of the law under which he imposed the duties violates the U.S. Constitution.

The justices declined to hear the American Institute for International Steel’s appeal of a March ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade that rejected the group’s lawsuit. The institute is a pro-free-trade group that represents steel importers and users of imported steel.

Mr. Trump imposed 25-per-cent tariffs on imported steel and 10-per-cent tariffs on imported aluminum in March, 2018, based on national security grounds. Exemptions have been granted to Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Korea in exchange for quotas. Canada and Mexico were exempted in May. In response, both countries lifted their retaliatory tariffs on the United States.

Story continues below advertisement

The institute brought its lawsuit in June, 2018, arguing that a section of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which allows presidents to impose tariffs based on national security, is unconstitutional because it delegates too much discretion to the president at the expense of Congress.

When the lower court rejected the challenge, the steel group chose to appeal directly to the Supreme Court instead of taking the case to a regional federal appeals court first.

Two companies, steel trader Kurt Orban Partners and Sim-Tex LP, an oil pipe supplier, also joined the lawsuit.

Mr. Trump has rattled the world trade order by imposing unilateral tariffs to combat what he calls unfair trade practices by China, the European Union and other major trading partners of the United States. The bulk of Mr. Trump’s tariffs have been aimed at China, covering US$250-billion worth of Chinese goods so far.

China and other countries have retaliated by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. goods.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter