Neal Katyal, an Indian-origin American lawyer, gained prominence after the US Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s tariffs, emphasizing that tariff authority resides with Congress.
Indian-origin American lawyer Neal Katyal has come into the spotlight following a major US Supreme Court ruling that struck down former President Donald Trump’s sweeping reciprocal tariffs. In a 6–3 decision, the court ruled that the authority to impose tariffs lies with Congress unless explicitly delegated, placing limits on presidential trade powers.
The judgment, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and supported by five other justices, was seen as a significant reaffirmation of constitutional checks on executive authority — with Katyal playing a key role in the legal challenge.
Who is Neal Katyal?
Neal Katyal is widely regarded as one of the most prominent appellate lawyers in the United States. Born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents — his father a doctor and his mother an engineer — Katyal built an academic foundation at Dartmouth College before graduating from Yale Law School.
Over the years, he has developed a distinguished career spanning academia, public service and high-profile litigation. Katyal serves as the Paul Saunders Professor at Georgetown University and previously held the role of Acting Solicitor General of the United States. He has argued roughly 50 cases before the US Supreme Court — a rare distinction — and has held senior positions including adviser roles within the US Justice Department.
His achievements include receiving the Edmund J. Randolph Award, the Justice Department’s highest civilian honour, as well as recognition as Litigator of the Year by The American Lawyer.
How he won the case
On February 20, 2026, Neal Katyal delivered one of the most significant legal defeats to President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda. In a 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision — in the consolidated case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (No. 24-1287) and related matters — was a complete victory for the challengers Katyal represented.
Katyal, the former Acting US Solicitor General (Obama administration) and one of the nation’s most experienced Supreme Court advocates (this was his 53rd or 54th argument before the Court), called it “a complete and total victory” and “everything we asked for.”Here is the detailed breakdown of the case, the tariffs, Katyal’s strategy, the arguments, and exactly how he prevailed.
The Tariffs at Issue: Trump’s “Liberation Day” Global Trade Shock
Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump declared multiple national emergencies citing:
- Influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China.
- Persistent US trade deficits harming American manufacturing.
Invoking IEEPA — a statute that allows the President to “regulate” international economic transactions during emergencies — he imposed:
- 25% tariffs on most imports from Canada and Mexico.
- 10%+ tariffs on Chinese goods tied to drug trafficking.
- “Reciprocal” tariffs of at least 10% on imports from nearly every other trading partner, with higher rates (sometimes 20–60%) on dozens of countries.
- These were frequently adjusted and applied broadly, affecting virtually all imported goods.
The administration described them as tools to protect national security and bring jobs back. Critics, including small businesses, called them unconstitutional taxes that raised consumer prices and disrupted supply chains.The Lawsuit: Small Businesses vs. Presidential OverreachThe case began in spring 2025 when the Liberty Justice Center filed suit on behalf of five small US businesses (including Learning Resources, Inc. and V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) that relied heavily on imports.
Core Legal Claims:
- Tariffs are taxes/duties — and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress alone the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”
- IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The statute allows the President to “regulate” imports but never mentions “tariffs,” “duties,” or the power to tax.
- Even if ambiguous, the major questions doctrine and non-delegation principles require Congress to speak clearly when delegating vast economic power.
- The tariffs violated separation of powers and amounted to “taxation without representation.”
The plaintiffs won at the US Court of International Trade (injunction issued) and again at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (affirmed the block).Neal Katyal Joins the Team and Takes the LeadIn mid-2025, prominent appellate lawyers Michael McConnell (Stanford professor and former 10th Circuit judge) and Neal Katyal (partner at Milbank LLP, Georgetown law professor) joined as co-counsel for the Supreme Court phase. McConnell handled much of the briefing; Katyal conducted the oral arguments at both the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court.
Katyal later said he believed from the beginning that the action was “blatantly illegal” and that the challengers had “the best originalist understanding from the point of view of our founders.”
Key Elements of Katyal’s Winning Strategy:
- Tariffs = Taxes: Repeatedly framed the issue as a straightforward constitutional command — only Congress can tax.
- Statutory Interpretation: IEEPA’s text (“investigate, regulate… prevent…”) does not include the power to impose duties. Congress knows how to authorize tariffs when it wants to (it has done so in dozens of other statutes).
- Major Questions Doctrine: A sweeping, economy-wide tariff regime is a “major question” requiring clear congressional authorization.
- Originalism & History: The Founders deliberately placed the taxing power in Congress to prevent executive abuse (echoing “no taxation without representation”).
Not About Politics: Katyal stressed the case was about institutional limits on the presidency, not any one president.
Step 1: Building the Case Foundation — Framing Tariffs as Unconstitutional Taxes
Katyal’s central argument rested on a core constitutional principle: tariffs are effectively taxes on imports, and under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to impose taxes and duties.
The Trump administration relied on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the tariffs, arguing that it allowed the President to regulate international commerce during national emergencies. Katyal countered that while the law permits investigation and regulation, it does not grant the power to impose tariffs — a power Congress has explicitly delegated in other statutes but not in IEEPA.
From the beginning, Katyal framed the tariffs as constitutionally invalid. He emphasised an originalist argument — appealing to conservative justices — that the Founders intentionally placed taxing authority with Congress, rooted in the principle of “no taxation without representation.”
By positioning the dispute as a separation-of-powers issue rather than a political challenge, Katyal strengthened the case’s credibility. He joined the litigation in 2025 as co-counsel, representing small businesses that demonstrated real financial harm from steep tariffs on everyday imports. Lower courts ruled in their favour, setting the stage for the Supreme Court appeal.
Step 2: Using Legal Doctrines To Limit Executive Power
A key strategy involved invoking the major questions doctrine — a principle requiring Congress to clearly authorise executive action on matters of major economic and political significance.
Katyal argued that tariffs affecting global trade, supply chains and domestic prices clearly fell into this category. If Congress intended to grant sweeping tariff authority through IEEPA, it would have done so explicitly.
He also pointed to concerns related to the non-delegation doctrine, warning that broad interpretations could give future presidents unchecked economic power and weaken Congress’s constitutional role. This institutional framing resonated strongly with the Court’s majority.
Step 3: Oral Arguments — Experience And Precision
During oral arguments, Katyal relied on a disciplined approach grounded in constitutional text and historical interpretation rather than policy debate. Facing tough questions from the justices, he repeatedly emphasised that IEEPA was designed for targeted sanctions, not broad taxation powers.
Drawing on extensive Supreme Court experience, he addressed concerns about executive flexibility while reinforcing the constitutional boundary between regulation and taxation. His ability to appeal across ideological lines proved critical, with justices from different backgrounds joining the majority.
The government argued the tariffs were regulatory tools, but the Court appeared sceptical about whether that reasoning would effectively allow presidents to impose taxes without congressional approval.
Step 4: The Ruling — A 6–3 Constitutional Check
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 6–3 to strike down the tariffs imposed under IEEPA. The majority concluded that:
- The law does not authorise tariffs because tariffs are taxes reserved for Congress.
- Major economic actions require clear congressional delegation.
- Future tariffs under that authority must stop, though past tariffs would not be refunded.
The Ruling (6-3):
- Opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts (joined in full or part by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson).
- Holding: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
- The Court vacated the lower-court judgments to the extent necessary and remanded, effectively ending the tariffs.
- Two Trump-appointed justices (Gorsuch and Barrett) joined the majority — a notable bipartisan rebuke.
- Concurrences reinforced the major questions doctrine and statutory limits.
- Dissent (Justice Thomas, joined by Kavanaugh and Alito in part) would have given the President broader emergency authority.
The decision did not order refunds for past tariffs paid but immediately halted future collection under the challenged IEEPA authority.
Katyal’s Post-Ruling Statements
In interviews and on X (formerly Twitter) immediately after the ruling, Katyal said:
- “Today, the United States Supreme Court stood up for the rule of law and Americans everywhere. Its message was simple: Presidents are powerful, but our Constitution is more powerful still. In America, only Congress can impose taxes on the American people.”
- “The US Supreme Court gave us everything we asked for in our legal case. Everything.”
- “We always believed this was gravely illegal… It was very gratifying to see six members of the Supreme Court agree with us.”
- “This case has always been about the presidency, not any one president… about the separation of powers, and not the politics of the moment.”
- He described Trump’s actions as “really fundamentally un-American.”
Why Katyal Won: The Decisive Factors
- Strong Constitutional Grounding: The taxing-power argument is one of the clearest in the Constitution.
- Judicial Deference Limits: Even a conservative Court was unwilling to let one statute grant unlimited tariff authority.
- Experienced Advocacy: Katyal’s calm, precise, originalist framing resonated with the Court’s current composition.
- Bipartisan Lower-Court Wins: Built credibility before reaching SCOTUS.
- Timing: Full merits briefing (not shadow docket) allowed thorough review.
