Neal Katyal, former Acting US Solicitor General, became key figure behind the landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down Donald Trump’s broad tariffs. He argued that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on all trading partners was unconstitutional.
After the ruling, Katyal stated, “Today, the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law. The President is powerful, but our Constitution is even more powerful. Only Congress has the authority to tax the American people.”
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by small businesses, with support from the Liberty Justice Center. Trump had justified the tariffs as vital for national security and economic stability. Katyal described the Supreme Court’s decision as a historic win for constitutional checks and balances, emphasizing that the case was about the office of the presidency itself, not just one leader.
Background of Neal Katyal
Born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents – a doctor and an engineer – Katyal pursued law at Dartmouth College and Yale Law School.
He clerked for US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and has argued over 50 cases before the Supreme Court, a record among minority lawyers. Appointed Acting Solicitor General by President Barack Obama in 2010, Katyal represented the federal government in numerous high-profile constitutional cases.
Trump’s Fierce Response to SC Tariff Rejection
President Donald Trump delivered a scathing rebuke of U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2026, after it struck down his sweeping global tariff regime in a 6-3 ruling.
A furious Trump called the decision a “disgrace” and expressed being “absolutely ashamed” of the majority, which included three conservative justices – two of whom he appointed.
He even suggested, without evidence, that the Court had been influenced by “foreign interests.” However, the President remained defiant, immediately signing an executive order to impose a temporary 10% global tariff under a different statute, signaling that his “America First” trade war will continue despite the legal setback.
