Indian-American attorney Neal Katyal is the lawyer who argued against President Donald Trump’s tariffs before the US Supreme Court and came out victorious with a verdict that handed the Republican his biggest legal setback since he returned to the White House in 2025.
Speaking to reporters outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, alongside Sara Albrecht, chair of the Liberty Justice Center, on 20 February after the verdict, Katyal called the ruling a “complete and total victory” for the challengers, according to an AP report.
“It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American people,” said Katyal, who represented the case on behalf of a group of small businesses.
Solicitor general D. John Sauer represented the administration, assisted by two members of his office.
How did attorney Neal Katyal react after verdict?
Celebrating the verdict on social media platform
“Today, the US 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.” he wrote in another, detailed post.
“I’m also grateful to the five small business owners who stood up against these unjust, unconstitutional taxes. By taking a stand, they have delivered crucial relief to tens of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers across the country… This case has always been about the presidency, not any one president. It has always been about separation of powers, and not the politics of the moment. I’m gratified to see our Supreme Court, which has been the bedrock of our government for 250 years, protect our most fundamental values,” he added.
Speaking to MSNBC after the verdict he added, “I was able to go to court — the son of immigrants — and say on behalf of American small businesses, ‘Hey, this president is acting illegally.’ I was able to present my case, have them ask really hard questions, and at the end of it they voted and we won. That is something extraordinary about this country.”
What were the arguments made in the case?
- The case tested the limits of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law meant for emergencies and law traditionally used to address national security threats.
- The tariffs, which Trump imposed by declaring a national emergency over persistent trade deficits, cover imports from nearly every US trading partner.
- During the arguments heard on November 5, 2025, the justices expressed skepticism over whether the statute can be applied to broad trade policy, prompting questions about the legality of the tariffs.
- Lower courts had already ruled that the administration overstepped its authority, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Why was this verdict significant?
Dubbed as “among the most significant in American history”, the 6-3 judgment struck down Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed since February 2025 under IEEPA, opening the way for refund claims on over $133 billion collected in tariffs.
Economists at the Penn-Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) estimate that over $175 billion in tariff collections could be subject to refunds. The model cross-references import data across 11,000 product categories and 233 countries to produce its forecasts.
Earlier, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said the Treasury can handle potential refunds, citing large cash balances planned for March ($850 billion) and June ($900 billion), but was also confident the court would uphold the tariffs.
Notably, the order also undercuts Trump’s signature economic and trade policies and comes months ahead of the US mid-term polls scheduled later this year in November. The Trump administration and his Republican party are on the back foot amid increasing dissatisfaction over rising prices and immigration policies that have led to mass protests across the country.
Who is Neal Katyal? All you need to know
Born on 12 March 1970 to Indian immigrants Pratibha (a pediatrician) and Surendar (an engineer) in Chicago, Illinois, Neal Kumar Katyal is an American attorney and legal scholar.
The 55-year-old is at present a partner at Milbank LLP and is the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Previously, under the Obama administration, he served as Acting Solicitor General of the United States from May 2010 till June 2011; and prior to that was a lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the United States Department of Justice.
Katyal’s father passed away in 2005, and his sister Sonia is also a lawyer and teaches at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.
He graduated from Dartmouth College and Yale Law School and in his early days clerked at the office of US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, as per an IANS report. Over the years, he has fought over 50 cases before the Supreme Court, including challenging Trump’s 2017 travel ban, and defending the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it added.
Another significant case where he fought was as Special Prosecutor for the State of Minnesota in the murder case of George Floyd.
Katyal has written ‘Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump’ and been awarded the US Justice Department’s highest civilian honor — the Edmund Randolph Award. He also won Litigator of the Year by The American Lawyer in 2017 and 2023 and has been named among the top 200 US lawyers by Forbes in 2024 and 2025, it added.
How did Donald Trump react to US Supreme Court ruling?
Trump called the judgment a “terrible decision” and announced that he would sign a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, ANI reported. This authority allows for a temporary import surcharge (up to 15%) for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits.
As per a Bloomberg report however, this is a temporary measure as the provision puts a 150-day limit on duty impositions and requires approval from Congress for any further extensions.
The temporary import duty will take effect on February 24 at 12:01 am, as per the White House fact sheet titled ‘President Donald J. Trump Imposes a Temporary Import Duty to Address Fundamental International Payment Problems’.
What do we know about country tariff rates?
- Answering questions at the White House following the verdict, Trump said there is “no change” in the trade deal with India and that the agreement is “still on”, according to a PTI report.
- Responding to ANI, a White House official confirmed that India will pay 10% tariffs in line with Trump’s newest executive order, stating: “Yes (India will pay), 10% (tariffs) until another authority is invoked.”
- Notably, last year Trump imposed 50% tariffs on India (25% reciprocal and 25% “punishment” for buying Russian oil), which was reduced to 18% (reciprocal, with Russia related duties removed), following a joint interim trade framework announcement earlier this month.
- US news channel, CNBC also reported that a White House confirmed all countries with existing trade agreements with the US, would drop down to the 10% tariff rate, in line with the latest executive order.
- This includes Vietnam (earlier 20%), India (18%), the European Union, Japan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and South Korea (15% each), and the United Kingdom (remains at 10%), the CNBC report added.
- The ruling affects a broad range of duties imposed under IEEPA, including: a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all US trading partners; additional tariffs of 10%, 25% and 35% on goods from China, Mexico and Canada; 25% tariff on countries importing oil from Venezuela; 25% duty on India for importing Russian oil; 40% tariff on certain Brazilian products.
- However, Trump said that tariffs imposed under Section 232 (National Security) and Section 301 (Unfair Trade) remain “in full force and effect”, as they were not affected by the IEEPA ruling, as per reports.
- Notably, aluminum and steel exports to the US from all countries, are still subject to separate sector specific tariffs under separate statutory authority, also still remain subject to the existing levies.
- The White House fact sheet added that Trump has also “reaffirmed and continued the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments, including goods shipped through the international postal system, which will also be subject to the temporary import duty imposed under section 122”.
- Notably, tariffs imposed under Section 301 would also need country-specific probes with chance from the affected companies or countries to make their case, and where officials would need to conclude the country has violated a trade agreement or engaged in practices that burden US trade in order to impose the tariffs, Bloomberg reported.
- The Trump administration in its fact sheet has stated that “tariffs will continue” and are a “critical tool” for Trump to “protect American businesses and workers, reshore domestic production, lower costs, and raise wages”.
(With inputs from agencies)
