By finchetak.com August 30, 2025
What the Court Said
In a 7-4 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court emphasized that while the president can regulate imports during national emergencies, only Congress has the authority to impose taxes or tariffs.The ruling also upheld an earlier decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which had similarly struck down the legality of these tariffs.
The India-Specific Context
India has been hit particularly hard with duties reaching 50%—a 25% “reciprocal” tariff plus an additional 25% linked to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil. These tariffs have severely impacted Indian exports in sectors such as textiles, auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and jewellery. Analysts warn that up to 70% of India’s U.S.-bound exports may be jeopardized if the duties remain.
Market and Economic Impact
The ongoing legal battle has created uncertainty in financial markets. For Indian exporters, orders have already been canceled, and firms are under pressure to find alternative markets. Meanwhile, U.S. businesses are concerned that if the tariffs are ultimately struck down, they may have to refund billions of dollars, adding fiscal strain and further volatility.
Trump’s Reaction and What’s Next
President Trump responded strongly, calling the decision "a total disaster for the country" and labeling the court “highly partisan.” He insisted that all tariffs remain in effect and expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will reverse the ruling.
This appeals court ruling delivers a major legal blow to Trump’s tariff strategy, reaffirming that only Congress can levy taxes or duties. For India, however, the 50% tariffs remain active—continuing their strain on exports and trade ties. As the case heads to the Supreme Court, both Indian exporters and U.S. companies remain in limbo. The outcome will not only shape U.S.-India trade relations but also define the limits of executive power in setting economic policy.