Published on: 21 Feb, 2026 19:27 IST
In a striking rebuke to presidential overreach, the U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2026, struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs in a 6-3 decision, declaring them unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling, delivered in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., marks one of the most significant checks on executive trade authority in recent memory and puts Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal squarely at the center of the victory.
Katyal, a former Acting Solicitor General under President Barack Obama and one of the country’s most formidable Supreme Court advocates, argued the case on behalf of small businesses like toy maker Learning Resources, Inc., and other importers hit hard by the duties.
Speaking after the decision, he called it a complete win: “The U.S. Supreme Court gave us everything we asked for,” he said in interviews. He praised his team as “the best legal team in the world” and emphasized that the fight was about constitutional limits on the presidency itself, not any one occupant of the Oval Office. “Presidents are powerful,” Katyal noted, “but our Constitution is more powerful still.”
The tariffs in question stemmed from a series of executive orders Trump issued shortly after returning to office. Invoking IEEPA a 1977 law meant for responding to genuine foreign emergencies like sanctions on rogue states or terrorist financing the administration imposed duties ranging from 10% to 25% (and in some cases higher) on imports from virtually every trading partner. The White House justified them as tools to combat drug trafficking (especially fentanyl from Mexico, Canada, and China), illegal immigration, and persistent trade deficits that Trump argued had hollowed out American manufacturing.
Critics, including the challengers Katyal represented, saw it differently: this was the first time any president had stretched IEEPA to impose broad tariffs, effectively creating a unilateral tax on imports without congressional buy-in. Small businesses bore much of the pain—higher costs squeezed margins, threatened jobs, and stifled innovation. Estimates suggested the levies had already pulled in over $160–200 billion, with American households facing an extra $1,200 or more annually in higher prices, hitting lower-income families hardest.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was clear and emphatic: IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The law allows the president to “regulate… importation” in emergencies, but it says nothing about duties or taxes. Tariffs, the Court stressed, are a core congressional power under Article I of the Constitution”no taxation without representation” remains a foundational principle. Roberts, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, invoked the “major questions doctrine” to reject the idea of such a massive delegation hidden in vague statutory language. Notably, two of Trump’s own appointees—Gorsuch and Barrett—crossed ideological lines to side against the administration, underscoring that this was less about politics and more about separation of powers.
The three dissenters—Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito argued for greater executive flexibility in national emergencies, warning that invalidating the tariffs could disrupt trade deals and force billions in refunds.
For Katyal, the win fits a pattern. Now 55, the Chicago-born son of Indian immigrants (his mother a pediatrician, his father an engineer) has argued more than 50 cases before the Supreme Court more than any minority lawyer in history. His resume includes landmark victories like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (invalidating Guantanamo tribunals), blocking Trump’s 2017 travel ban, and defending voting rights. He often represents clients pro bono in high-stakes constitutional fights, and in this case, he stressed the personal stakes: his parents fled political instability in India, shaping his deep belief in checks and balances.
The ruling is already rippling globally. Nations like India, Mexico, Canada, and the EU many of which retaliated against the original tariffs view it as a vindication of multilateral trade rules and a reminder that executive whims can’t rewrite international commerce overnight. Importers are lining up for potential refunds, though questions remain about how those billions will be handled.
Trump wasted no time responding. Hours after the decision, he announced a new 10% across-the-board tariff under different legal authorities, dismissing the ruling as “terrible” and calling the justices “fools.” Experts say while IEEPA-specific levies are dead, other tools like Section 232 national security tariffs remain available—though narrower and more legally constrained.
In an era of rising protectionism, this decision stands out as a rare moment when the judiciary reminded everyone—including the most powerful office in the world that the Constitution sets real boundaries. As Katyal put it, the system showed it can still correct itself, upholding foundational values even in polarized times. For small businesses, consumers, and trading partners worldwide, it’s a hopeful signal that unauthorized economic overreach can be checked and that the rule of law still matters.