NRI PULSE STAFF REPORT
Washington, D.C., February 22, 2026: Constitutional lawyer Neal Katyal is in the national spotlight after helping secure a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down sweeping global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.
The decision, issued in February 2026, is being widely described as a landmark judgment on the limits of presidential power. Katyal played a leading role in arguing that the president did not have the authority to impose broad tariffs without approval from Congress — a position the Court ultimately upheld.
A decisive ruling on presidential power
The case challenged the administration’s use of emergency economic powers to impose tariffs affecting imports from around the world. Businesses and trade groups argued that the move exceeded executive authority and effectively created new taxes without congressional consent.
Katyal’s central argument was straightforward: tariffs function as taxes, and under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to levy taxes.
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the law used by the administration did not authorize such sweeping tariffs. The judgment struck down the policy and reaffirmed the constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch.
Legal scholars say the ruling could reshape how future presidents approach trade policy and emergency economic authority.
A leading voice in constitutional law
Katyal is no stranger to high-stakes legal battles. One of the country’s most prominent Supreme Court advocates, he previously served as Acting Solicitor General of the United States — the federal government’s top courtroom representative before the Supreme Court.
Born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents, Katyal has built a reputation as a formidable appellate lawyer and constitutional scholar. Over the years, he has argued numerous major cases involving executive authority, national security, and federal law.
He is also a longtime law professor and widely respected legal commentator, frequently called upon to interpret complex constitutional questions for the public.
Why the decision matters
The tariff ruling is being viewed as one of the most consequential economic and constitutional decisions in recent years. It not only halted a major trade policy but also clarified limits on presidential authority during national economic actions.
Analysts say the case underscores a core constitutional principle: that major economic decisions with tax-like consequences must be approved by lawmakers, not imposed unilaterally by the executive branch.
For businesses affected by higher import costs, the ruling brought immediate relief. For constitutional scholars, it reinforced long-standing debates about executive power in times of perceived economic emergency.
