The United States Supreme Court will begin oral hearings on Wednesday to determine whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing sweeping reciprocal tariffs.
These tariffs, which the administration used as leverage to secure multiple trade agreements, have become the center of a major legal and political dispute.
Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy — once touted as a bold assertion of American strength — is now facing growing backlash not only from global partners but also from within the United States.
Several domestic stakeholders, including small American businesses, economists, and lawmakers, argue that the President’s approach has destabilized markets and burdened U.S. importers.
Even the judicial system appears skeptical, raising serious questions about whether Trump stretched executive power beyond constitutional limits.
India’s Stakes
India has been among the countries most affected, facing U.S. tariffs of up to 50%. As a result, Indian exports to the U.S. — its largest export market — dropped by 12% in September.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently held consultations with exporters to discuss strategies to enhance export competitiveness amid these challenges.
An adverse Supreme Court ruling for Trump could force the U.S. to roll back IEEPA-based tariffs entirely, potentially creating room for India to negotiate a more balanced trade deal.
Reports suggest that Washington has been pressing India to open its market for sensitive agricultural products like genetically modified soya and corn, in exchange for reduced tariffs.
Legal and Financial Fallout
If the tariffs are struck down, the U.S. government may be compelled to refund as much as $100 billion to importers — a seismic financial setback.
PwC estimates total collections under the scheme at $108 billion, with India accounting for nearly $487 million of that figure.
Three U.S. lower courts have already ruled against Trump, stating that IEEPA does not grant presidents the power to impose broad-based tariffs.
These rulings highlight growing institutional pushback, raising questions about the legitimacy of Trump’s expansive use of emergency economic powers.
Domestic Resistance
In the U.S., opposition to Trump’s trade policies is intensifying. Over a dozen small businesses have challenged the tariffs in court, reflecting wider domestic frustration.
Trade experts argue that these tariffs — branded by Trump as “Liberation Day” measures — disrupted global supply chains and strained relations with key allies such as Japan, the EU, South Korea, and the U.K.
If overturned, several recently negotiated U.S. trade arrangements could unravel, while ongoing talks with India would need to be recalibrated.
Trump’s Backup Plan
Sensing legal vulnerability, the Trump administration has significantly expanded the use of Section 232 tariffs, which are justified on “national security” grounds.
These measures target imports of steel, aluminium, automobiles, copper, timber, and even industrial robots — sectors where the U.S. depends heavily on foreign supply.
While Section 232 tariffs are narrower in scope, they offer stronger legal protection, as the Supreme Court has historically refrained from challenging national security-based trade actions.
Indian officials, however, note that Section 232 tariffs are applied universally and therefore do not distort competitive advantage, making them less problematic for India than IEEPA tariffs.
Trump’s economic confrontation strategy — once sold as a pathway to American prosperity — is now at the crossroads.
Growing domestic backlash, judicial scrutiny, and global diplomatic pushback show that the President’s unilateral trade tactics may be hitting legal and political limits.
The upcoming Supreme Court decision could reshape U.S. trade policy, global economic relations, and Washington’s negotiations with partners like India — possibly compelling a return to more institutional and balanced trade mechanisms.