Trump Vows to Maintain India Tariffs Despite Supreme Court Ruling on IEEPA Limits

The recent 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States represents a significant constitutional check on executive trade authority, yet the immediate reaction from the White House suggests a period of heightened legal and economic uncertainty. By ruling that the President exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the court has effectively dismantled the legal architecture used to justify the 'reciprocal tariffs' first announced on April 2, 2025. However, President Trump’s defiant stance—insisting that 'nothing changes' for India-US trade—signals that the administration is prepared to bypass judicial constraints through alternative executive mechanisms or aggressive renegotiations.

At the heart of this conflict is the administration's 'reciprocal' trade philosophy, which seeks to match the tariff levels of trading partners on a product-by-product basis. For India, this has meant navigating a volatile relationship where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is simultaneously praised as a 'great gentleman' and accused of 'ripping off' the United States in past years. The President’s assertion that the current deal is 'fair' because India is paying tariffs while the U.S. is not, highlights a fundamental shift in the bilateral trade dynamic that the administration is loath to relinquish, regardless of the court's mandate.

“

For India, this has meant navigating a volatile relationship where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is simultaneously praised as a 'great gentleman' and accused of 'ripping off' the United States in past years.

From a market perspective, this development creates a precarious environment for multinational corporations and logistics firms operating in the Indo-Pacific corridor. If the Supreme Court has deemed these tariffs unlawful, businesses may theoretically be entitled to refunds or the cessation of payments. Yet, the President’s vow to find 'alternative routes' suggests that any relief may be short-lived. This could involve invoking Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows for tariffs based on national security grounds—a broader and often more defensible legal standard than the emergency powers currently under fire.

The geopolitical implications are equally complex. Trump’s claims regarding his intervention in India-Pakistan relations and India’s shift away from Russian oil demonstrate how trade policy is being used as a primary lever for broader foreign policy goals. By claiming credit for a ceasefire through the threat of 200% tariffs, the administration is doubling down on a 'transactional diplomacy' model. While New Delhi has historically denied such unilateral influence, the pressure of market access remains a potent tool that the White House appears unwilling to set aside.

Looking ahead, the focus for investors and policy analysts will shift to the Treasury and Commerce Departments. The 'alternative routes' mentioned by the President likely involve a combination of new executive orders and a push for legislative changes that would codify reciprocal tariff authority. Until these new measures are introduced, the trade relationship with India remains in a state of 'de facto' continuity despite 'de jure' illegality. This disconnect between judicial ruling and executive enforcement will likely lead to a wave of secondary litigation as importers seek to challenge ongoing collections at the border. For now, the administration’s message is clear: the policy of protectionism will continue, with or without the Supreme Court’s blessing.