They do so by NOT hearing challenges against the lower courts siding with a President’s ability to level them if Congress does NOT close a loophole for President’s to use to get around the law that President’s must get Congressional approval…A Trump second term would surly mean more tariffs and import taxes …
The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to hear a case brought by U.S. steel importers against tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed on steel imports in 2018, effectively ending the legal challenge and leaving the steep duties in place on imports from Europe, China and many other countries.
The decision could embolden Trump to take further tariff actions without worrying that the Supreme Court will strike them down. It puts the onus on Congress to decide whether its wants to rein in Trump’s tariff powers. So far, neither the Republican-led Senate nor the Democratic-led House has shown much interest in that.
Although the U.S. Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over trade, Trump imposed the tariffs under the Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which gives the president broad powers to restrict imports to protect national security.
The American Institute for International Steel, which represents importers of foreign-made steel, argued the law is unconstitutional because it imposes no limits on the president’s discretion to take action. As a result, the law is an improper delegation of legislative authority and a violation of the separation of powers, AIIS said.
The import group did not have an immediate comment on the Supreme Court’s decision to not to hear its complaint, thus ending a nearly two-year legal battle. Both the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals also sided with the Trump administration in previous rulings on the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision is no surprise…
Another ruling b y the high court…
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) practice of seeking to seize profits obtained illegally from fraudulent companies.
In a 8-1 decision, the justices ruled that the SEC can force defendants in court to hand over their net profits obtained from wrongdoing as restitution to any victims who were defrauded.
Still, the decision, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, limits the SEC’s authority to seize such profits, ruling that the agency can’t seek more than the amount of net income generated through a fraudulent scheme and should use the funds to provide relief for victims….