US Supreme Court Tariff Verdict: Justice Kavanaugh Cites India Oil Duties in Dissent

New York/Washington: The US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff measures has drawn attention to a dissenting opinion that specifically referenced India.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose broad-based import duties. The judgment invalidates tariffs introduced under the 1977 emergency law framework.

However, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the majority view. In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh highlighted tariffs that had been imposed on India in connection with its purchases of Russian oil.

Under Trump’s administration, India had initially faced a 25 per cent reciprocal tariff, along with an additional 25 per cent punitive duty linked to its continued imports of Russian crude. While the reciprocal tariffs were later reduced to 18 per cent, the additional 25 per cent levy tied to oil imports was eventually removed after the US government stated that India had committed to halting direct or indirect energy imports from Russia and increasing purchases of American energy products.

In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued that tariffs historically intersect with foreign affairs and national security considerations. He noted that the government had leveraged IEEPA-based tariffs in negotiations with major trading partners, including China, the United Kingdom, and Japan, claiming that these measures helped open foreign markets to American businesses and contributed to trade agreements worth trillions of dollars.

He further wrote that the President’s use of IEEPA authority was tied to sensitive diplomatic negotiations aimed at ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Referring to India specifically, Kavanaugh mentioned that tariffs were imposed on August 6, 2025, over Russian oil imports and were later reduced on February 6, 2026, after India reportedly committed to stopping such purchases.

Kavanaugh acknowledged that foreign policy decisions — whether involving war, trade agreements, or tariffs — often carry domestic consequences. However, he emphasized that courts should interpret statutes as written, while maintaining due respect for both Congress and the President in matters involving foreign affairs.

Despite the dissent, the Supreme Court’s majority ruling significantly limits the executive branch’s ability to impose sweeping trade duties under emergency powers without explicit congressional authorization.