The repeated judicial invalidation of Trump's tariff measures reflects a structural conflict between executive emergency powers and the constitutional primacy of Congress over trade. Critically analyse with reference to the major questions doctrine.

Q. The repeated judicial invalidation of Trump's tariff measures reflects a structural conflict between executive emergency powers and the constitutional primacy of Congress over trade. Critically analyse with reference to the major questions doctrine. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution vests the power to "lay and collect duties" in Congress, yet broad emergency statutes have allowed Presidents to act unilaterally. The 2026 rulings against Trump's tariffs expose this delegation fault line, though the judicial correction is only partial.

The structural conflict - Trump declared a national emergency over a "large and persistent trade deficit" and invoked IEEPA to impose a 10% baseline tariff on all partners, including India [2]. - In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (6–3, February 2026), the Supreme Court held IEEPA nowhere mentions tariffs or duties, unlike statutes where Congress expressly delegated tariff power with limits on scope, duration and procedure [1]. - The pattern recurred: the fallback Section 122, Trade Act 1974 tariff was struck down by the Court of International Trade in Burlap & Barrel (May 2026) as the statutory balance-of-payments conditions were unmet [3] — evidence of a structural, not episodic, overreach.

Major questions doctrine as the judicial instrument - The doctrine demands clear congressional authorisation for executive action of vast economic and political significance [2]. - The tariffs' scale — a dominant share of enforcement revenue and a large refund exposure — made ambiguity fatal to the executive's claim [2].

Critical appraisal: a limited check - Relief extended only to plaintiffs with standing; no nationwide injunction, and an appellate stay kept the tariff operative [3][4]. - Section 232 and 301 powers remain untouched [2], so executive tariff leverage survives. - Review is ex post: firms and exporters had already absorbed years of uncertainty.

For India, which faced the baseline tariff even as bilateral trade talks were held to be unaffected [5], the lesson is to hedge through export diversification and WTO-based dispute settlement rather than bilateral goodwill. The rulings ultimately reaffirm that legislative sanction, not emergency assertion, legitimises trade taxation — a separation-of-powers principle that strengthens predictability in the rules-based global trading order.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, U.S. Supreme Court (Feb 20, 2026) — 6–3 holding that IEEPA does not authorise tariffs; contrast with express tariff delegations 2. CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11398, "Supreme Court Rules Against Tariffs Imposed Under IEEPA", Congress.gov — IEEPA emergency declaration and 10% tariff; major questions doctrine; Sections 232/301 left intact 3. Oregon v. United States / Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 26-47, U.S. Court of International Trade (May 7, 2026) — Section 122 tariff invalidated; relief confined to plaintiffs with standing 4. American Society of International Law, "The U.S. Court of International Trade Invalidates Trump's 10% Global Tariff" — appeal to the Federal Circuit and stay leaving the tariff in effect 5. News on AIR (Prasar Bharati), "India–US trade deal remains unchanged after US Supreme Court tariff ruling" — India's exposure to the baseline tariff and status of bilateral negotiations