US Supreme Court’s Reclamation of Independence by Rejecting Trump’s Tariff Policy is a Lesson for India

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in its historic judgement declaring imposition of tariffs by President Trump on several countries of the world as unconstitutional has been interpreted as the restoration of independence of the apex judiciary of that country. It did so on the ground that his unilateral decision solely on the basis of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) bypassed the American Congress which alone has the power to levy tariffs, and so his action infringed upon the principle of separation of power, the sheet anchor of the US constitution, and violated individual liberty. The judgement has been hailed for upholding the constitution in the face of the arbitrary decision of the executive.

Why was the tariff policy unconstitutional?

It is worthwhile to recall that Trump, after commencing his second term in office as US president invoked IEEPA and declared national emergency in response to, what he called, two dangers confronting America – the first emanating from entry of drugs to US from Canada, Mexico, and China and the second caused by massive trade deficits the US had with other countries which imposed high rate of tariffs on US goods and services they imported. Such high tariff rates, he explained, led to, “hollowing out" of the American manufacturing base and undermining its “critical supply chains." This promulgation of national emergency was defended on the ground that it would enable the Trump administration to firmly deal with public health crises caused by the influx of drugs and levy tariffs on other countries to bridge the trade deficit by invoking the provision of IEEPA which mandates the US president to, among other things, regulate “importations or exportation” with respect to other countries. Trump’s interpretation of the IEEPA provision to regulate “importation or exportation” through the imposition of tariff was rejected by the US Supreme Court on the convincing ground that only Congress has the power to do so on the basis of the foundational principle of the US constitution – “no taxation without representation.” In the judgement it was stated that framers of the US constitution “… did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. The whole power of taxation rests with Congress.” It was also made clear by the judges that the US is not engaged in war with every country and so during peace time, the president has no power to regulate “importation or exportation.”

US Supreme Court restoring its independence

This landmark 6-3 verdict of the US apex court can be perceived as the reclamation of its independence from the executive. Such a perception that SCOTUS has got back its independent status vis-a-vis the executive headed by Trump might create an impression that the constitution of that country clearly mandates the independence of the US Supreme Court. 

A look at the Washington Post editorial of February 21, 2026 titled ‘Trump’s Tariffs Fall to a Principled Supreme Court’ clearly drives home the point that the US Supreme Court’s decision striking down Trump's arbitrary tariff policy has brought back its credibility as an institution independent of the executive.

The editorial very sharply wrote, “One narrative about this Supreme Court is that it is subservient to Trump.” Then it proceeded to claim, “Now the court has frustrated his signature initiative. Last year it also blocked his deportations without due process to El Salvador and ruled against his deployment of the National Guard in Illinois”. “This decision (on the tariff issue) was too close, but it underscores that the Supreme Court remains independent. The separation of powers held. If only Congress would also fulfill its role as forcefully.”

The same issue of the US Supreme Court upholding its independence was invoked by Adam Liptak in his New York Times article, ‘With a 6-3 Ruling, Independence Is Declared,’ published on February 21. He observed, “Starting with the 2024 decision that gave President Trump substantial immunity from prosecution and continuing through a score of emergency orders provisionally greenlighting an array of his second-term initiatives, Mr. Trump has had an extraordinarily successful run before the Supreme Court.”

He then proceeded to add, “That came to a sudden, jolting halt … when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for six members of the court, roundly rejected Mr. Trump's signature tariff program. It was the Supreme Court's first merits ruling — a final judgment on the lawfulness of an executive action - on an element of the administration's second term agenda. It amounted to a declaration of independence”.

Message to Indian Supreme Court

Such celebration of independence of the US Supreme Court based on its momentous judgement declaring Trump’s tariff policy as null and void and upholding the cardinal principle of separation of power signals a powerful message to the Indian Supreme Court in the context of alarms expressed in our country about the perils emanating from what has been described as “executive courts.”

In fact Gautam Bhatia wrote an article – ‘The Fear of Executive Courts’ – in The Hindu on April 14, 2018 and it underlined the crucial point that “India urgently needs the return of a thriving legal culture that uncompromisingly calls out political posturing.” From the day the article was written there has been no qualitative change to instil hope that the fear of "executive courts" in India has been allayed. Can the Indian Supreme Court set an example in the manner in which SCOTUS has done in case of Trump’s tariff policy and uphold the constitution?

Nehru’s vision on independence of judiciary

Speaking in the Constituent Assembly on May 24, 1949 on the issue of establishment of the Supreme Court India first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru very thoughtfully talked about the need for judges of the higher judiciary and specifically of the Supreme Court to safeguard their independence from the executive and boldly confront those who would imperil its neutrality and probity. He said, "It is important that these judges should be not only first-rate, but should be acknowledged to be first-rate in the country, and of the highest integrity, if necessary, people who can stand up against the executive government, and whoever may come in their way".

The fear of the "executive courts" in India has to be dispelled to fructify the vision articulated in the Constituent Assembly.

S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to the former President of India, K.R. Narayanan.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.