When the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling limiting the president’s tariff power, one lawyer stood at the center of the constitutional battle — Neal Katyal.
A former Acting Solicitor General and one of the most experienced Supreme Court litigators in modern times, Katyal argued that tariffs imposed under emergency authority amounted to unconstitutional taxation. His case reshaped debate on executive power, trade policy, and the separation of powers.
Early Life and Education
Katyal was born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents — a physician father and engineer mother. His upbringing reflected academic rigor and public service values.
He graduated from Dartmouth College and later earned his law degree from Yale Law School.
A pivotal moment in his career came when he clerked for Stephen Breyer at the U.S. Supreme Court. That experience refined his approach to appellate advocacy — precision in text, clarity in structure, and disciplined constitutional reasoning.
Rise to the Top of Supreme Court Advocacy
Katyal’s career accelerated rapidly. In 2010, he was appointed Acting Solicitor General under Barack Obama. In that role, he represented the federal government before the Supreme Court — often called “the Tenth Justice” because of its influence and credibility.
He has argued more than 50 cases before the Court, one of the highest totals among private advocates and a record for minority lawyers.
Today, he serves as a partner at Milbank LLP and teaches constitutional and national security law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Landmark Tariff Case Against Donald Trump
The defining recent chapter of Katyal’s career involved a constitutional challenge to tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump.
Trump had relied on the 1977 statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous trading partners.
The administration justified the move by citing national emergencies, including trade imbalances and fentanyl trafficking.
Katyal, representing small businesses, argued that these tariffs functioned as taxes — and under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress possesses taxing authority.
Core Constitutional Argument
Katyal’s legal strategy rested on three pillars:
1. Tariffs Are Taxes
He argued that tariffs raise revenue and directly burden American consumers and businesses. Therefore, they fall under Congress’s taxing power.
As he stated publicly after the ruling: “In America, only Congress can impose taxes on the American people.”
2. Statutory Limits Under IEEPA
Katyal maintained that IEEPA does not authorize unlimited tariff authority. While the statute grants emergency economic powers, it does not explicitly permit broad, revenue-raising trade barriers.
He emphasized statutory interpretation. If Congress intended to delegate tariff power, it would have said so clearly.
3. Structural Separation of Powers
He framed the case not as political, but institutional.
Allowing unilateral tariff power would centralize economic authority in the executive branch. That, he argued, violates the Constitution’s structural safeguards.
Supreme Court Decision and Impact
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of limiting presidential tariff authority. The majority opinion underscored that Congress holds primary authority over taxation and trade regulation.
The ruling carries long-term implications:
- It narrows executive reliance on emergency economic statutes.
- It reasserts legislative primacy in trade policy.
- It clarifies delegation limits in constitutional law.
For businesses, the decision reduces unpredictability in tariff policy. For legal scholars, it reinforces structural constitutional doctrine.
Broader Legal Record
Beyond the tariff case, Katyal has handled several high-profile matters:
- Defended the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
- Challenged Trump’s 2017 travel ban.
- Served as Special Prosecutor for Minnesota in the George Floyd case.
- Co-authored the book Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump.
He has received the Justice Department’s highest civilian honor, the Edmund Randolph Award, and has been named Litigator of the Year multiple times.
Advocacy Style and Strategy
Katyal’s courtroom method is deliberate and structured.
He:
- Frames issues as rule-based disputes.
- Uses short, direct sentences in oral argument.
- Anticipates counterarguments before they arise.
- Proposes administrable legal standards.
His approach blends textual analysis with real-world consequences — making abstract constitutional questions concrete.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Politics
This case was not merely about trade. It was about constitutional architecture.
If presidents can unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs under emergency statutes, the balance between Congress and the executive shifts dramatically.
The ruling signals that emergency powers cannot override structural safeguards.
As Katyal emphasized, the decision affirms that institutions — not individuals — define American governance.
Practical Takeaways
For Businesses
Monitor statutory authority behind trade policy changes. Executive action without clear congressional backing may face legal vulnerability.
For Lawmakers
Delegations of authority must be explicit and bounded. Courts increasingly scrutinize vague statutory language.
For Citizens
Constitutional design affects daily economic realities. Tariffs influence prices, supply chains, and inflation.
For Legal Professionals
The case will become a teaching example in delegation doctrine and separation-of-powers jurisprudence.
Conclusion
Neal Katyal has built a career at the intersection of constitutional law, public service, and appellate excellence.
His tariff challenge sharpened a central constitutional question: how far can presidential emergency powers extend into economic policy?
By persuading the Supreme Court to reaffirm congressional authority over taxation, he reinforced a foundational principle — power must remain divided to remain accountable.
His career reflects more than courtroom victories. It reflects a consistent commitment to constitutional structure, institutional balance, and rule-based governance.
