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

The SCOTUS’s rejection of Trump’s tariff regime highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional limits on executive power, offering lessons for the Indian Supreme Court’s review of the SIR process.
Why the US Supreme Court’s tariff verdict offers lessons for India’s Supreme Court on SIR’s constitutional validity
Published on

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.

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.”
Loading content, please wait...
The Leaflet
theleaflet.in