Leaders React to SC Ruling Striking Down Trump Tariffs
Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued against the tariffs before the Supreme Court, hailed the ruling as a landmark affirmation of constitutional principles
New Delhi/Washington: Political leaders in India and the United States reacted sharply after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down former US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The Congress party alleged that the Modi government rushed into a “one-sided” trade framework with Washington ahead of the court’s verdict. Congress leader Pawan Khera questioned why Prime Minister Narendra Modi placed a “late-night call” to the US on February 2 and suggested that New Delhi should have waited for the Supreme Court’s decision before finalising the agreement.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down Donald Trump’s so-called global tariffs. Had India waited just 18 more days, we may not have found ourselves cornered into what is a one-sided, anti-India trade deal,” Khera said in a post on X. He also raised a series of political questions regarding the timing of the agreement and alleged that the government must clarify its position.
The trade framework, announced earlier this month, reduced US tariffs on Indian exports from 50 per cent to 18 per cent and outlined broader commitments on trade and imports.
Senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram also sought clarity from the government, asking how the US court’s ruling would impact the recently announced trade framework. He had earlier argued that if the tariffs were struck down, both countries might revert to the status quo ante.
Referring to reported concessions under the agreement — including zero tariffs on several US exports to India and India’s intention to import USD 500 billion worth of American goods, including energy — Chidambaram asked what would become of those commitments. He also questioned the next steps for the Indian trade delegation currently in the US to finalise the framework text.
Meanwhile, in the United States, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued against the tariffs before the Supreme Court, hailed the ruling as a landmark affirmation of constitutional principles.
Katyal described the judgment as a strong endorsement of the separation of powers, emphasising that only Congress has the authority to impose taxes. “Presidents are powerful, but our Constitution is more powerful still. In America, only Congress can impose taxes on the American people,” he said in a statement on X.
He also praised the Liberty Justice Center and small business owners who challenged the tariffs, stating that the decision delivered relief to businesses and consumers across the country.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling has triggered significant political and diplomatic debate, with leaders on both sides of the Atlantic assessing its implications for trade policy, executive authority, and ongoing bilateral negotiations.