This is my view – I feel that the SC of US will allow tariff to continue. This is my logic:

Question 1: Is Tariff a Tax

The argument that Trump et al have put together in the Slaughter vs. Trump case is that Tariff is not a Tax – it is foreign policy instrument. There are more and more evidence that it is becoming so.
1.⁠ ⁠Inflation has not gone up – so it is not impacting the society in general
2.⁠ ⁠⁠Trump has said that he will pay back some of the money to Armed Forces + Society in general, thus redistributing the money.

The fact that India’s oil purchase went down 37% from Oct to Dec ’25 might show that this is a policy measure and as a policy measure it has some teeth. There are other areas where US has negotiated better trade terms on this basis – which again proves the effectiveness of the measure. Recall the India Tariff was specifically asked by the US SC CJ during the arguments.

The US Court might well take a view that this policy measure (not a tax), based on the above observations. So, the first thing that might get established is that ‘Tariff is not a tax’.

In India, it is very clearly treated as Tax. So is it in UK and in the EU. In the US there is a debate about it.

Question 2: Non-delegation doctrine

Since this is not a Tax, this doctrine does not apply. Only Congress can tax the society, since this is not a tax, it doesn’t need broad Congressional approval. Without Congress approval, the President can layout a tax of up to 15% for up to 150 days. Here there might be some issues – but Trump will find a bye-pass. The amount of Tariff is a after thought in this – the first is the ability to impose tax. Since that is established, the quantum of tax will be a moot point. They might have some restrictions there, but can work around it.

If the bi-partisan Graham bill, which Trump has green lit passes (which it will), then they will have a stronger argument for higher Tariff.

Question 3: Major Questions Doctrine

This says that the Congress has to define the ‘threat’ or the ‘operational situation’ or ‘emergency’ in detail before imposing or voting on any action. This is the reason Biden’s Loan Maaf was declared illegal – the ‘emergency’ is not defined well’. However, there is an exception to the ‘major questions doctrine’ – apparently it need not be applied when it is a ‘foreign policy’ issue, to take care of national secrets.

In here, there is something against Trump et al – the judge asked why countries like France are subject to tariff, if it is an ‘emergency’ measure in light of National Security. That point might still be a hurdle for the US Gov, – that tariff is there for all countries.

But Trump et al have declared emergency by micro-markets. Like emergency in Auto-manufacturing, Sparkling Wine etc. etc.

That might hold some water – it is the opposite the Netflix saying that I am a leader in the OTT market, but I am a minor player in the online video market.‘Overall, we do not have emergency with Germany, but in the area of automobile manufacturing, we do have one’.

Remember the tariff ‘banner’ rates we see are not the rates – they are adjusted by individual item codes.

The recent non-alignment of Europe with US will also set aside the notion of a ‘friendly country’ – for there might be none.

As a result, there can be a very strong argument in favour of giving this power to the Executive, without taking anything away from the Senate – if they find that Tariff is not Tax.

Hence, my view. Thanks.