India found itself directly referenced in a landmark US Supreme Court judgment limiting presidential tariff authority, after justices examined how tariffs imposed under emergency powers were used as tools of foreign policy– including pressure linked to Russian oil imports.
The ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise a US president to impose tariffs, significantly narrowing executive power over trade policy even when tied to diplomatic negotiations.
While the majority struck down the tariffs, the Court’s dissent highlighted India as an example of how such measures had been deployed in foreign affairs.
India cited in tariff diplomacy linked to Russia-Ukraine conflict
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh described how the US administration used tariffs during sensitive geopolitical negotiations.
“As with tariffs on foreign imports historically, the IEEPA tariffs on foreign imports at issue in this case implicate foreign affairs,” the dissent noted.
According to the judgment, the US government argued that tariffs had been leveraged in negotiations with major trading partners.
“The Government says that the tariffs have helped make certain foreign markets more accessible to American businesses and have contributed to trade deals with foreign nations worth trillions of dollars.”
India was specifically mentioned in connection with US efforts tied to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
“To that end, on August 6, 2025, the President imposed tariffs on India for ‘directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil.’”
The dissent further recorded that the tariffs were later eased, noting “And on February 6, 2026, the President reduced the tariffs on India because, according to the Government, India had ‘committed to stop directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil.’”
Foreign policy versus constitutional limits
The dissent argued that tariffs have historically functioned as instruments of diplomacy and national security, warning that courts should not restrict presidential authority in foreign affairs using doctrines typically applied to domestic regulation.
“Presidential actions pursuant to broad congressional authorizations related to foreign affairs often have long historical pedigrees,” the dissent stated, arguing that statutes should be interpreted “as written, not with a thumb on the scale against the President.”
Justice Kavanaugh contended that applying the “major questions doctrine” — which requires clear congressional approval for sweeping executive action — represented a novel judicial intervention in foreign policy decision-making.
Majority rejects foreign affairs justification
The Supreme Court’s majority, however, rejected the argument that foreign policy considerations expand tariff authority.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that tariffs are fundamentally a form of taxation and therefore fall within Congress’s exclusive constitutional powers under Article I.
The Court concluded that even emergency statutes dealing with international threats cannot transfer core taxing authority to the president without explicit language from Congress.
The justices emphasised that no president had previously used IEEPA to impose tariffs in its nearly five-decade history, reinforcing their conclusion that Congress never intended to delegate such sweeping authority.
