๐.๐. ๐๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ค๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐๐๐ซ ๐๐๐๐๐
A major relief to countries that trade with the U.S. as the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down tariffs imposed under IEEPA. In ๐๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐. ๐ฏ. ๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ (Feb 20, 2026), the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
The judgment holds that:
(1) Article I of the Constitution vests the power to impose tariffs in Congress and not on the delegated President.
(2) โRegulate importationโ does not equate to the power to tax
(3) The Major Questions Doctrine applies even in emergency contexts
(4) Extraordinary economic measures require clear congressional authorization
The ruling is a significant reaffirmation of ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, particularly in matters with sweeping global trade implications.
In related jurisprudence curbing regulatory overreach by counterpart of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in the US, applying the above principles:
In ๐๐๐ ๐ฏ. ๐๐๐ซ๐ค๐๐ฌ๐ฒ 603 U.S. 109 (2024), the Court held that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission‘s use of in-house judges to impose civil penalties for securities fraud violates the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial and hence uncostitutional.
In ๐๐ข๐ฎ ๐ฏ. ๐๐๐ 591 U.S. 71 (2020), the Court restricted the SECโs disgorgement powers, holding that disgorgement must be tied to identifiable victims and limited by traditional equitable principles. Supreme Court limited U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission‘s power of routine disgorgement. The Court is expected to further examine in 2026 whether disgorgement can be sought absent proof of pecuniary harm.
These developments highlight an ongoing judicial recalibration of administrative and regulatory authority. Similar debates on separation of powers and concentration of legislative, executive, and adjudicatory functions continue in India, particularly in relation to regulators such as Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, PFRDA- Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and Competition Commission Of India. While the Supreme Court of India has occasionally cautioned against excessive concentration of powers [e.g., (2004) 8 SCC 524], a comprehensive constitutional examination of regulatory architecture remains pending by Government of India as well.
Readers are welcome to share their views with Regstreet Law Advisors on info@regstreetlaw.com
