The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with former President Donald Trump in a case involving steel tariffs which was opposed by the administration of President Joe Biden.

USP Holdings contended that the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs was incorrect, a stance lower courts rejected in an appeal. The Biden administration, for the most part, maintained the existing tariff levels while opposing USP Holdings and other steel importers who claimed the tariffs had adversely affected them.

“The Biden administration understands that simply lifting steel tariffs without any solution in place, particularly beyond the dialogue, could well mean layoffs and plant closures in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states where obviously the impact would be felt not only economically but politically,” Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said.

“Trump cited Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962, which permits the president to impose restrictions on the importation of goods deemed essential to national security. He said at the time that the tariffs were needed to bolster the production of airplanes, ships, and military materials with U.S. steel. The tariffs created tension with some U.S. allies, although some countries were exempted from the policy,” the report added.

“The Supreme Court turned away the petition in USP Holdings Inc. v. United States, court file 22-565, in an unsigned order. The court didn’t explain its decision. No justices dissented from the order. In April 2017, then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross commenced an investigation to determine whether “steel was being imported under such circumstances as to threaten or impair national security,” according to the petition filed with the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to deliberate on whether to accept petitions from defendants accused in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, which could potentially impact the criminal prosecutions of Trump.

The defendants are requesting the dismissal of an indictment that charged them with obstructing an official proceeding at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. At that time, Congress was momentarily unable to certify President Joe Biden’s victory due to rioters storming the building. On Friday, the justices will meet for their semi-annual private conference to discuss the possibility of reviewing the oral arguments of defendants Edward Lang, Joseph Fischer, and Garrett Miller.

The defendants have asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the proper statute to use in prosecuting them is Section 1512 (c)(2) of the US Code. In a petition filed on July 11, Lang’s defense attorney contended that the disagreement over this statute could impact “hundreds of cases as the Department of Justice continues to charge folks who participated in a protest that turned violent on January 6, 2021.” He cited the case as evidence.

Special counsel Jack Smith has filed four counts against Trump in his federal election interference case, including this and other offenses, the Washington Examiner reported.

A lower court decision that allowed the government to pursue charges against the defendants would remain in effect if the justices rejected the case. On the other hand, the justices might take their time over their legal issues if they decide to take up the case, delaying the hearing of oral arguments until the spring and possibly even into June. The nine-member court needs a minimum of four votes to grant a case review.

Also, Trump’s legal team may interpret the petition’s approval as a green light to ask for a postponement of his election inference trial, which is set to begin on March 4, the day before many states choose their Republican nominee for the general election in November.

As the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Trump stands to gain from a trial postponement since, should he win in 2024, the charges against him in the two federal cases could be dismissed. He is also facing charges in another case related to the purported improper handling of sensitive documents. It is possible that he could be found guilty before the election if the March proceedings in the District of Columbia proceed according to plan.