In February 2026, the Neal Katyal Supreme Court tariff ruling became one of the most closely watched constitutional decisions in the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States delivered a 6–3 decision striking down sweeping global tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump. The Court ruled that the president had exceeded his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, reaffirming that the power to impose broad trade duties rests with Congress.
The Neal Katyal Supreme Court tariff ruling has since been described as a defining constitutional moment in the debate over executive power.
The case was brought by a coalition of small businesses and trade associations that argued the tariffs were unlawful. Representing them before the Court was Neal Kumar Katyal, a veteran Supreme Court advocate known for high-stakes constitutional litigation. After the decision, Katyal described the outcome as a complete victory and said the ruling reinforced the rule of law.
The Supreme Court Tariff Ruling Explained
The dispute centered on whether a president can use emergency economic powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners without congressional approval. The Trump administration had argued that the 1977 emergency law granted broad authority to respond to national security and economic threats.
Opponents maintained that the statute was never intended to function as a blanket authorization for global trade duties. The Supreme Court agreed with that view. In its majority opinion, the Court made clear that emergency powers cannot replace Congress when it comes to taxation and trade policy.
The ruling is widely seen as a reaffirmation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Who Is Neal Katyal
Neal Katyal was born on March 12, 1970, in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents. His mother was a pediatrician and his father was an engineer. He graduated from Dartmouth College and later earned his law degree from Yale Law School.
After law school, Katyal clerked for Judge Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals and then for Justice Stephen Breyer at the Supreme Court. The experience placed him early in his career at the heart of constitutional decision-making.
From 2010 to 2011, he served as Acting Solicitor General of the United States under President Barack Obama. In that role, he represented the federal government before the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts nationwide.
A Career Defined by Constitutional Battles
Katyal has argued more than 50 cases before the Supreme Court, placing him among the most active advocates in modern history.
His major cases include:
• Defense of the Voting Rights Act in Northwest Austin v. Holder
• Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which challenged military commissions at Guantanamo Bay
• Moore v. Harper, where the Court rejected the Independent State Legislature theory
• Defense of the Affordable Care Act
• Legal challenges related to the 2017 travel ban
He also served as Special Prosecutor for the State of Minnesota in the prosecution following the murder of George Floyd.
Throughout his career, Katyal has frequently appeared in cases involving executive authority, national security, election law, and civil liberties.
Private Practice and Recognition
Katyal is currently a partner at Milbank LLP, where he leads the appellate practice in Washington, D.C. He also serves as a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
He has been named Litigator of the Year by The American Lawyer in 2017 and again in 2023. In private practice, he has represented major corporations and institutions in complex constitutional and regulatory disputes.
Why the Ruling Matters
The Supreme Court’s decision was not solely about tariffs. It addressed a broader constitutional issue: how far emergency powers can extend without congressional oversight.
By ruling against the unilateral tariffs, the Court reaffirmed that taxation and broad trade policy decisions fall within Congress’s authority. The decision placed clear limits on executive action under emergency statutes.
For Neal Katyal, the case reinforced his role as a central figure in contemporary constitutional litigation. From voting rights to executive power disputes and now global trade authority, his work continues to intersect with defining legal questions shaping American governance.
