Supreme Court rejects challenge to Trump’s steel tariffs

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to President Trump’s ability to put tariffs on steel and another battle over the legality of state laws that criminalize threats of violence.

The move rejecting the tariffs challenge leaves the president’s steel tariffs in place.

The American Institute for International Steel, a trade group, brought the legal battle against the Trump administration, arguing part of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gave the president unlawful authority over tariffs, which the group contends should be imposed by Congress.

Their chief legal argument is that the delegation of power to Mr. Trump, instead of the legislature, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.

To date, Mr. Trump has imposed “more than $6.6 billion of tariffs on imported steel products,” according to court documents.

Lower courts had sided with the administration and against the trade group.

The high court did not comment on its rejection of the group’s appeal.

Mr. Trump imposed a 25% tariff on steel products imported to the U.S. on March 8, 2018. The tariffs were supposed to make foreign competitors’ steel more expensive, therefore helping the U.S. steel industry, but they also hurt U.S. companies that import steel.

Mr. Trump also has imposed tariffs on aluminum.

Attacking the trade deficit was one of the president’s major 2016 campaign promises, as he promised to put America first and rebalance trade with major partners such as China.

The justices also dodged weighing if state laws criminalizing threats of violence run afoul of the Constitution.

Kansas wanted the high court to decide if its law was constitutional after the state’s highest court struck it down.

The case came after a man was convicted for telling a police detective’s son that he “’was going to end up finding [his] dad in a ditch.’” Another man was also convicted for threatening his mother, telling her he was “’going to f—-ing kill [her].’”

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled the state law allowing the men to be punished violated the First Amendment, and the convictions were overturned. The state’s highest court said the threats required higher levels of intentionality to impose fear to be considered a “true threat.”

Justice Clarence Thomas said he thought the high court should hear the dispute.

“In my view, the Constitution likely permits states to criminalize threats even in the absence of any intent to intimidate,” he wrote.