US top court blocks sweeping import duties under emergency laws
Washington’s highest judicial body has delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump’s international economic strategy. Justices voted 6-3 to invalidate his sweeping worldwide import taxes, declaring that emergency executive powers cannot be used to arbitrarily tax foreign goods. This landmark decision carries massive implications for global commerce, particularly for Indian businesses.
Prior to this ruling, Washington and New Delhi had negotiated an interim trade framework, subjecting Indian goods to an 18 percent import tax. Now, that specific arrangement has been upended. Following the judicial defeat, the White House quickly pivoted, issuing a fresh executive order under a different law. This new directive imposes a temporary, flat 10 percent surcharge on products entering the United States from all foreign nations. Starting February 24, Indian exporters will face this reduced 10 percent rate instead of the previously agreed-upon 18 percent.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, firmly establishing that only Congress holds the constitutional authority to approve broad import duties. He clarified that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant a sitting president the limitless capability to dictate global trade policy.
Neal Katyal, a prominent American lawyer of Indian descent, spearheaded the legal challenge against the administration. Representing numerous small businesses, the former Acting Solicitor General successfully argued that these unilateral economic measures were entirely illegal. Following the court's announcement, he publicly celebrated the outcome as a triumph for small enterprises and the American constitutional system, highlighting the rigorous but fair judicial process.
President Trump expressed intense frustration over the legal setback. Speaking from the White House, he labeled the verdict a disgrace and publicly criticized the justices who ruled against him, including two of his own conservative appointees. Unwilling to abandon his protectionist agenda, he immediately signed a new proclamation using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act to authorize the fresh 10 percent global levy. He insisted that foreign governments would continue paying these fees and promised further investigations into international trade practices.
Trade experts remain cautiously optimistic about the immediate fallout. While the sudden policy shift creates temporary uncertainty, the drop from 18 percent to 10 percent offers a tangible benefit for Indian manufacturing sectors shipping goods stateside. Exporters now face a standard reciprocal levy, leveling the playing field against other international competitors.
Global reactions have been swift but measured. Officials in Taiwan stated they are carefully analyzing the flat 10 percent surcharge, though initial assessments suggest the economic damage will be minimal. Meanwhile, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed that his office will launch new investigations covering major trading partners to ensure domestic industries remain protected.
Ultimately, this judicial intervention redefines the boundaries of executive power in international trade. While Indian exporters welcome the lower financial burden, the global market remains on edge as the US administration explores alternative methods to enforce its economic vision.
With Agency and Public domain Inputs
