Landmark SC Verdict Expected in Trump Tariff Case Argued by Neal Katyal

SC Set to Rule on Trump Tariffs, Neal Katyal Argues Case That Could Limit President’s Emergency Authority.

In a stunning rebuke to executive overreach, the Supreme Court of the United States on February 20, 2026, struck down former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariff regime, declaring it unconstitutional and reaffirming that the power to tax rests with Congress — not the White House. In a 6–3 landmark ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by invoking a national emergency to impose broad tariffs. The majority opinion made it crystal clear: tariffs are taxes, and under Article I of the Constitution, taxation authority belongs exclusively to Congress.

Roberts was joined not only by the Court’s liberal justices but also by two conservative Trump appointees — Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — in what legal observers are calling a dramatic assertion of constitutional boundaries. In dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh argued that the statute grants the President broad authority to regulate commerce during emergencies, underscoring a deep ideological divide over executive power.

At the heart of this constitutional showdown stood Neal Katyal, the Indian-American legal heavyweight and former Acting Solicitor General, who led the charge against the tariffs. A partner at Milbank LLP and a professor at Georgetown Law, Katyal argued that while the presidency is powerful, “the Constitution is more powerful still.” Representing small businesses and the Liberty Justice Center, he framed the case as a defense against unconstitutional taxation that had squeezed importers and destabilized markets.

Born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents, Katyal has now argued 54 cases before the nation’s highest court, further cementing his reputation as one of America’s foremost Supreme Court advocates. In a personal and symbolic gesture following the verdict, he shared an image of a traditional kada placed atop his legal brief, dedicating the victory to his late father and to what he called the American system’s “capacity for self-correction.”

The economic implications are seismic. Analysts estimate the federal government could owe more than $175 billion in refunds to importers who paid duties since February 2025. Average U.S. tariff rates, which had surged to roughly 16.8%, are now expected to fall closer to 9.5%, offering immediate relief to businesses battered by trade uncertainty. However, the political battle is far from over.

Within hours of the ruling, Trump announced a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a temporary 150-day measure widely viewed as a stopgap attempt to reassert executive leverage. Legal scholars warn that further litigation is inevitable. For now, though, the Supreme Court’s decision stands as a forceful reminder that even sweeping claims of emergency power cannot eclipse constitutional limits — and that in the United States, the separation of powers remains more than just a principle; it is enforceable law.