CHICAGO / WASHINGTON, Feb 21 — Neal Katyal, the Indian-American lawyer who successfully argued against former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs before the United States Supreme Court, has emerged as a central figure in one of the most consequential trade policy rulings in recent U.S. history.
The Supreme Court’s decision — which invalidated large parts of Mr. Trump’s tariff program under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — underscored constitutional limits on executive trade authority and highlighted Katyal’s role as a key legal strategist.
Born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents, Katyal has established a reputation as one of the most influential constitutional lawyers in the United States, with decades of experience arguing high-stakes cases before the nation’s highest court.
Early Life and Legal Formation
Neal Kumar Katyal graduated from Dartmouth College and earned his Juris Doctor from Yale Law School before clerking for distinguished federal judges, including Justice Stephen G. Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court.
His ascent in the legal profession included serving as Acting Solicitor General of the United States — the government’s top courtroom advocate before the Supreme Court — under President Barack Obama. In that role, he represented the U.S. government in numerous landmark constitutional cases and was widely recognized for his articulate courtroom presence.
Katyal’s deep constitutional expertise spans appellate litigation, national security, voting rights and environmental law, making him a prominent voice in federal legal circles.
The Tariff Case and Supreme Court Victory
In early 2026, Katyal led the legal challenge to the legality of the global tariffs that the Trump administration had imposed using IEEPA, a law originally designed to grant the president limited authority to regulate economic activity during national emergencies. Katyal and allied counsel argued that tariffs — effectively taxes on imports — require explicit authorization from Congress under the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, agreed with that position, holding that the president lacked statutory authority to impose broad tariffs under IEEPA without clear congressional delegation. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that tariff powers reside primarily with Congress, underscoring the separation of powers.
Legal experts described the ruling as a landmark affirmation of constitutional checks on executive economic authority, with implications for future presidential action on trade and economic sanctions.
Katyal, who argued before the court on behalf of small businesses and trade associations opposing the tariffs, framed the decision as upholding the Constitution’s allocation of taxing powers. In public remarks, he emphasized the judiciary’s role in maintaining institutional balance.
Professional Trajectory and Legal Acclaim
Before his involvement in the tariff case, Katyal had argued more than 50 cases before the Supreme Court, including major constitutional and civil rights matters. His portfolio includes defending the Voting Rights Act, challenging military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, and advocating on behalf of clients in high-profile civil litigation.
Katyal’s leadership roles extended beyond litigation: he has been a tenured law professor and chaired appellate practice groups at prominent law firms. His peers have recognized him with honors such as the Edmund Randolph Award from the U.S. Justice Department and repeated listings among the top lawyers in the country by legal publications.
He currently serves as a partner at Milbank LLP in Washington, D.C., where he focuses on complex appellate and constitutional cases, maintaining a broad client base across commercial and public interest law.
Legal Significance and Separation-of-Powers Debate
The tariff ruling has broader implications beyond trade policy. By constraining executive authority to impose taxes and duties without congressional approval, the decision reinforces constitutional separation of powers and sets legal precedent for future disputes over unilateral presidential action.
Katyal’s argument highlighted the inherent tension between emergency economic authority and long-standing constitutional text granting taxation powers to Congress. Analysts note that the outcome could influence debates on the limits of executive power in areas ranging from sanctions to pandemic-related regulations.
Supporters of the ruling — including industry groups and legal scholars — praised the decision as protecting democratic governance, while critics within the executive branch have warned of potential constraints on rapid policy responses to global economic challenges.
Public and Political Reactions
The Supreme Court’s decision against the tariffs elicited reactions across the U.S. political spectrum. While many lawmakers applauded the affirmation of constitutional limits, former President Trump described the ruling as a setback for economic policy and signaled plans to pursue alternative statutory avenues to reimpose tariffs.
Trade organizations and small business advocates credited Katyal and his legal team with securing an outcome that could save billions in import taxes and challenge the administration’s expansive use of emergency powers.
Observers noted that Katyal’s leadership in the case — and his broader legal career — underscore the impact of Indian-American legal figures in shaping pivotal U.S. jurisprudence. His role bridges constitutional advocacy, high-stakes litigation and civic engagement.
Background on IEEPA and Tariff Authority
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, enacted in 1977, allows the president to regulate economic transactions during declared national emergencies. Historically used for sanctions and trade restrictions, its application as a basis for sweeping global tariffs was unprecedented.
The litigation leading to the Supreme Court’s decision began in lower federal courts, where business groups and states argued that the expansive tariff measures exceeded statutory authority and harmed commerce. Katyal’s arguments focused on constitutional text and historical practice, asserting that only Congress may impose broad levies through tariffs.
Legacy and Future Outlook
As the legal community assesses the implications of the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling, Neal Katyal’s victory reinforces the Judiciary’s role in mediating executive power. It also signals potential strategic recalibrations in how trade policy is formulated and challenged in U.S. courts.
Legal analysts expect that future trade disputes and executive authority challenges will reference this case as a benchmark for constitutional interpretation. Meanwhile, Katyal continues to shape the landscape of constitutional advocacy in the United States.