Tariffs – Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Emergency Import Taxes

The judgement came after a legal challenge led by former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued that the administration had overstepped constitutional boundaries by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify broad tariffs on goods from numerous countries.

Court Reaffirms Congressional Authority

In its decision, the Supreme Court made clear that the power to levy taxes rests with Congress, not the president. Writing for the majority, the justices concluded that tariffs — as taxes on imported goods — require explicit legislative approval.

Reacting shortly after the verdict, Katyal described the outcome as a victory for constitutional principles. He said the ruling underscored the importance of separation of powers and reaffirmed that even the presidency operates within defined legal limits.

The case centered on the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a statute enacted in 1977 to address genuine national emergencies. Trump had relied on this law to introduce tariffs, citing trade imbalances and the opioid crisis as urgent threats to national security.

Small Businesses at the Center of the Case

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of small business owners who argued that the tariffs imposed significant financial burdens. The case received backing from the Liberty Justice Center, a public interest litigation group that supports constitutional challenges.

Trump’s legal team maintained that the tariffs were necessary tools to strengthen economic leverage and safeguard national interests. However, the Court found that the statute did not grant the president authority to impose broad-based import taxes without congressional involvement.

Legal analysts say the ruling is likely to limit future administrations from using emergency powers to implement large-scale economic measures without legislative approval.

The Lawyer Behind the Challenge

Katyal, born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents, has built a national profile through his work on major constitutional cases. A graduate of Dartmouth College and Yale Law School, he previously clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer of the Supreme Court.

In 2010, he was appointed Acting Solicitor General by President Barack Obama. During his tenure, he represented the federal government before appellate courts across the country and argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court.

Over the course of his career, Katyal has appeared before the justices more than 50 times, setting records among minority advocates. He currently serves as a partner at Milbank LLP and teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center.

His previous work includes defending the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, challenging the Trump administration’s 2017 travel ban, and securing unanimous Supreme Court rulings in environmental and national security cases.

A Broader Constitutional Debate

Speaking outside the Supreme Court building following the ruling, Katyal reflected on the broader meaning of the decision. He emphasized that the case was not about partisan politics but about maintaining the constitutional balance between the branches of government.

He described the experience of arguing the case as intense and rigorous, noting that the justices posed detailed and challenging questions during oral arguments. Ultimately, he said, the Court’s decision demonstrated that the American legal system allows for checks on executive power.

The ruling is expected to shape future debates over presidential authority in economic policy, particularly when emergency statutes are invoked. By reinforcing Congress’s exclusive role in taxation, the Court has clarified the limits of executive action in matters that directly affect businesses and consumers.

For many observers, the decision highlights the enduring framework of constitutional governance — a system designed to ensure that no single office, regardless of its power, operates beyond the law.