TOI correspondent from Washington: In an extraordinary and unprecedented attack on a storied 236-year old institution that predates the arrival in America of his forbears by almost a century, President Donald Trump has accused the US Supreme Court of being swayed by foreign interests after it struck down his “liberation day” tariffs in a 6-3 opinion. At a White House news conference and in social media posts that followed the legal and political setback, Trump deployed choice invective against the apex court, calling its majority “lapdogs for the radical left” and “fools” who were “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.” He alleged that the court had been influenced by outside global forces, while lashing out against the plaintiffs, among them Chicago-based toy seller Learning Resources, which imports educational toys, STEM kits, and classroom supplies from India.“I know the people that brought the lawsuit….they’re major sleazebags… they’re un-American slime balls who want to see our country fail,” he raged.
The US President also appeared to be referring to Neal Katyal, an Indian-American attorney who argued the case before the SC representing Learning Resources and other plaintiffs, and who has been a thorn for Trump’s MAGA dispensation. The case also involved another Indian-American attorney, Pratik Shah, who was the lead counsel for Learning Resources and hand2mind, two educational toy companies that challenged the presidential authority under IEEPA. The Supreme Court consolidated all the cases, and Katyal, who was originally the attorney for Liberty Justice Center, a legal organisation that fronted for five other plaintiffs affected by the tariffs, won the right to make the arguments after a coin toss. A small family-owned business, Learning Resources imports Do-It-Yourself science kits, Montessori-style wooden toys and sensory tools, and yoga balls like BubblePlush from Indian companies such as Funskool and Lighthouse Learning. According to company executives, they went up against the administration after having to pony up $14 million in tariff payments in 2025, nearly driving them to bankruptcy. Both Learning Resources and Katyal said statements following the judicial win that the case was about Presidential powers to impose tariffs, not about 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,” Katyal said. But Trump was unsparing in his vituperative attacks on the Supreme Court, even unloading on the three conservative justices who joined the three liberals in the 6-3 opinion. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth—the two of them,” he said, getting personal while referring to Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Comey Barrett, both of whom he nominated to the SC during his first term. The third, Chief Justice John Roberts, is a George W Bush Jr pick. Trump was at a meeting of US governors on Friday morning when an aide passed him a note about the SC ruling. According to several reports, the President went ballistic, raging about “the f***ing courts,” and ending the meeting quickly to formulate his response. He appeared in the White House briefing room a couple hours later, still visibly furious. Asked if the six justices who voted to undo his tariffs would be welcome at Tuesday’s State of the Union address, Trump responded, “They’re barely invited. Honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come.”The SC ruling marks a significant legal and political setback for Trump, who had imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), citing national security and economic sovereignty. In its opinion, the court held that the president had exceeded the authority granted under the statute, reinforcing Congress’s primacy over trade and taxation powers under the Constitution. The alignment between the three liberal and three conservative justices underscored the institutional nature of the ruling, which turned on statutory interpretation and constitutional structure rather than partisan ideology.Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum noted that the ruling reaffirms the constitutional separation of powers at a time of expanding executive action. Whether the decision curtails future efforts to unilaterally reshape US. trade policy remains to be seen, but the immediate fallout has injected tension into a relationship between the White House and the nation’s highest court which the President believed he could bend to his will.
Leave a Reply