Why the US Supreme Court’s tariff verdict offers lessons for India’s Supreme Court on SIR’s constitutional validity

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS), in a landmark 6-3 verdict, has declared the tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump on other countries without congressional approval as unconstitutional and illegal.

Reasons behind Trump’s tariffs

It is pertinent to recall that after assuming office as the President of the United States, Donald Trump declared a national emergency to deal with two foreign threats. He attributed the first to the massive inflow of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China to the US. The second, he traced to the “large and persistent” trade deficits that were causing the “hollowing out” of the American manufacturing base, undermining “critical supply chains.” 

While Trump considered the influx of drugs into the US a major public health crisis, he firmly believed that the spiraling trade deficit constituted a gigantic stumbling block to fulfil his vision of Making America Great Again (MAGA). He justified the declaration of emergency on the ground that these two threats were “unusual and extraordinary” and invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 legislation, which he claimed authorized the President to impose tariffs during emergency.

President Trump felt that the grave crisis caused by drug trafficking could be addressed by imposing a 25 percent duty on most Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10 percent duty on most Chinese imports. To deal with the mounting trade deficit, he levied the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on all imports from all trading partners ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent, which includes penal tariffs.  

SCOTUS judgement upheld the Constitution

The central point of the SCOTUS judgement is that only Congress has the power to impose tariffs, and that the IEEPA provisions mandating the President to “regulate” imports were never intended to authorise the President to impose tariffs “unbounded in scope, amount and duration” on any product from any country.

The Chief Justice, delivering the judgement of the Court, affirmed that the Constitution mandates only the American Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” He further observed that the framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power which “very clearly” encompassed in its scope “the power to impose tariffs.” He went on to add that the framers gave Congress “alone... access to the pockets of the people” and they “…did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch.”.

The Court categorically stated that the US is not at war with every country and that, during peacetime, the President cannot arrogate to himself the powers of the Congress to levy tariffs which are “unbounded in scope, amount and duration”.

In doing so, the Court upheld the cardinal principle of separation of powers, which constitutes a foundational pillar of the American Constitution. By reaffirming the Congress’s jurisdiction to impose tariffs and the ideal of separation of power, the Court placed the Constitution above the power or authority of the President. The ruling resonated with the massive “No King” protests launched across the US in June 2025, where protesters unambiguously proclaimed that “Constitution is not optional” and warned that certain measures taken by Trump were unconstitutional and threatened democracy.