The court held that the administration exceeded its authority by invoking the 1977 emergency law to impose sweeping tariffs, with Chief Justice John Roberts saying the statute does not grant unilateral tariff powers.
By voiding country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs and fentanyl-linked duties, the judgment effectively removes the leverage Washington used in trade talks with partners such as the United Kingdom, Japan, European Union, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam, many of which had moved toward concessions to avoid steeper duties.
Also read: Trump calls US Supreme Court’s tariff ruling ‘a disgrace,’ says ‘backup plan’ ready: Report
“The decision effectively renders recent trade deals initiated or concluded by the United States with the UK, Japan, the EU, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and India one-sided and useless. Partner countries may now find reasons to dump these deals,” GTRI said.
“Trump could attempt to reimpose similar tariffs under Section 301 or Section 232, but those statutes require new investigations and public justification, delaying action and inviting further legal challenges. Also, such measures cannot serve as a universal enforcement tool,” they added.
For India, which had been navigating tariff pressures while exploring sector-specific trade accommodations with Washington, the decision could alter negotiating dynamics overnight. Analysts say New Delhi may now reassess any commitments framed as responses to U.S. tariff threats, as the legal basis for those measures has effectively been struck down.
India struck a trade deal with Washington to cut tariffs on Indian goods to 18% from 50%, in return for New Delhi halting Russian oil purchases and lowering trade barriers.
Trade experts note that several interim arrangements reached during the tariff standoff were less formal treaties and more tactical understandings shaped by urgency. With the tariff instrument removed, partner countries could seek revisions, delay implementation, or reopen market-access terms that were previously accepted to secure relief.
Also read: US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s global tariffs imposed under emergency law
The ruling also injects broader uncertainty into U.S. commercial diplomacy, raising questions about how future administrations might enforce trade demands without congressional backing. For partners like India and others that balanced strategic ties with economic caution, the verdict signals that the negotiating table — not tariff brinkmanship — may again become the primary arena for resolving disputes.
The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court marks the sharpest judicial check yet on former president Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to reshape global trade flows. By holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act cannot be used to impose sweeping tariffs, the court effectively dismantled the legal foundation of the reciprocal tariff regime that Washington had used as leverage in recent bilateral negotiations.
Those tariffs had served as the pressure point behind a series of quick-fire trade understandings with partners ranging from major economies to emerging Asian suppliers. Countries had agreed to concessions — on market access, procurement, digital trade or investment — largely to secure relief from punitive duties. With the tariff threat now struck down, the bargaining asymmetry disappears, raising questions about whether those commitments will still hold political or economic value for partner governments.
Tariffs, tensions, truces: From ‘Liberation Day’ shock to courtroom knockdown — the full Trump trade war timeline
Trade analysts say the verdict also alters negotiating psychology. Without the ability to invoke emergency powers as a universal tariff threat, future U.S. administrations may need lengthier investigations and formal processes before imposing trade penalties. That reduces the immediacy of leverage Washington once wielded and could encourage partner countries to take a tougher line in ongoing or future talks.
More broadly, the judgment reinforces Congress’s constitutional primacy over trade policy, signalling that sweeping tariff actions must rest on explicit legislative authority. In practical terms, that re-anchors global trade diplomacy in slower, rules-based channels — a shift that could ripple through existing deals struck during the tariff era and reshape how countries, including India, calibrate their next moves.