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.
It is worth mentioning that there is not a single instance of any American President in the past invoking the IEEPA statute to impose tariffs, let alone tariffs of such scale and scope. It was rightly observed that the lack of historical precedent, coupled with the breadth of authority that President Trump now claims, suggests that the tariffs extend beyond the President's “legitimate reach.”
Relevance of the SCOTUS verdict for India
Such adjudication of the President’s decision to impose tariffs—by factoring the constitutional validity and eventually declaring it as unconstitutional—assumes significance for the Indian Supreme Court. The latter has taken several months to decide if the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is consistent with the Constitution. Instead of deciding the constitutional validity, the Indian Supreme Court is allowing the SIR process to continue, merely directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide palliative measures to smoothen the process of its implementation.
The ECI has claimed in its affidavit before the Court that it has the power to examine the citizenship status of the people while preparing or revising electoral rolls. This appears contrary to several judgements of the Supreme Court that have disallowed such powers. It has also been argued that Article 327 of the Constitution provides that the preparation of electoral rolls by the ECI must be carried out as per the law established by the Parliament.
However, The Representation of People Act, 1950 clearly states that the revision of electoral rolls can be done by the ECI only in a constituency or part thereof. It does not provide for special revision in the entire state or in several states. This raises an important question: why is the Supreme Court not examining the constitutional validity of SIR and allowing the ECI to go ahead with it?
The example of the SCOTUS examining the constitutional validity of Trump’s tariff policy and declaring it unconstitutional demonstrates the vitality of the self-correcting mechanisms of a constitutional system. It underscores the importance of upholding constitutional principles and safeguarding democratic institutions. For India, therefore, it is of immense significance to uphold the Constitution, counter the mounting dangers to it, and underline the critical significance of the self-correcting institutional mechanisms of our parliamentary democracy.
