Feb 21 News Live: India 'studying developments' of US SC order on Trump tariffs

Canada warns tariff pressure may persist after US SC ruling

Canadian International Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said the US Supreme Court’s decision backs Ottawa’s longstanding view that the tariffs in question were “unjustified.”

At the same time, he pointed out that the duties hitting Canada hardest remain untouched. Those include sector-focused tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, which continue to weigh on key industries, reported AFP.

Business leaders urged caution in interpreting the ruling. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce warned that the judgment should not be mistaken for “a reset of U.S. trade policy.”

In a statement, the chamber’s president, Candace Lain,g said, “Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” signalling concern that Washington could shift tactics rather than scale back its approach.

The remarks reflect uncertainty in Canada over what steps the United States might take next, even as the court’s ruling marks a legal setback for the contested levies.

Court strikes down Trump's tariffs, uncertainty lingers for businesses

Companies are confronting renewed uncertainty after the Supreme Court invalidated tariffs President Donald Trump had imposed under an emergency powers statute, even as he signalled plans to preserve his trade agenda through other means.

The administration has long argued that the duties are designed to strengthen domestic manufacturing and narrow the trade deficit. For many US businesses, however, the levies translated into higher input costs, prompting price increases and operational changes to stay afloat, reported AP.

How much relief Friday’s ruling will ultimately provide remains unclear. Any immediate sense of reprieve was tempered within hours when Trump announced he would turn to another statute to introduce a 10 per cent tariff on all imports for a period of 150 days. He also indicated he is examining additional legal avenues to target countries he accuses of engaging in unfair trade practices.

As a result, businesses and consumers are left weighing the prospect of shifting policies once again, with the broader trade landscape still in flux despite the court’s intervention.

Rahul targets PM Modi over US tariff ruling fallout

After the US Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s global tariff measures, Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi sharpened his attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the interim trade deal between India and the United States.

Responding to the court’s ruling, Rahul took to social media to question the Prime Minister’s handling of the agreement. He alleged that Modi’s position in the negotiations had been weakened and suggested that recent developments had laid bare what he described as a troubling reality. Rahul further argued that the government would find it difficult to reopen or revise the terms of the arrangement in light of the shifting circumstances.

In a pointed message on X, he wrote, "The PM is compromised. His betrayal now stands exposed. He can't renegotiate. He will surrender again," Rahul Gandhi wrote.

Illinois Governor $9B tariff refund from Trump

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has sent President Donald Trump a bill for nearly $9 billion, seeking tariff refunds for families in his state after the Supreme Court ruled the levies unlawful.

The 6-3 decision found that Trump exceeded his authority by using emergency powers to impose tariffs that disrupted global trade and drove up prices domestically. In response, Pritzker called on the White House to “cut the check," reported AFP.

"Your tariff taxes wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies and sent grocery prices through the roof," the Democrat wrote, adding that further legal steps could follow if refunds are not issued.

Pritzker’s letter, circulated to US media, seeks roughly $1,700 per Illinois household, a figure Yale University experts estimated as the average annual tariff burden per US household.

California Governor Gavin Newsom echoed the demand. "Time to pay the piper, Donald. These tariffs were nothing more than an illegal cash grab that drove up prices and hurt working families, so you could wreck longstanding alliances and extort them," he said. "Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!"

Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed the ruling “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

US SC strikes down Trump's Tariffs, refund fight looms over $133 billion

The US Supreme Court on Friday invalidated President Donald Trump’s most expansive tariffs, but left unresolved what happens to the USD 133 billion already collected under the now-defunct levies. Importers are seeking refunds, though trade lawyers expect a complicated path ahead.

“It's going to be a bumpy ride for awhile," said Joyce Adetutu of Vinson & Elkins. "The amount of money is substantial," she added. "The courts are going to have a hard time. Importers are going to have a hard time.'' Still, she said, “it's going to be really difficult not to have some sort of refund option'' after such a decisive ruling.

In a 6-3 decision, the court found Trump lacked authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted, “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.'' He warned “the refund process is likely to be a mess.'"

Trump said, “We'll end up being in court for the next five years.''

“Just because the process is difficult to administer doesn't mean the government has the right to hold on to fees that were collected unlawfully," said Alexis Early.

(With agency inputs)

Illinois toymaker’s case upends Trump's tariffs

A legal challenge brought by a small Illinois toy company has ended in a court decision that could force a rethink of President Donald Trump’s tariff strategy and potentially return billions to US importers.

Learning Resources, which sources much of its educational toys from China, was among the first to sue after the tariffs were introduced last April under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court on Friday struck down those sweeping duties, siding with a wave of plaintiffs that included businesses and state governments.

Chief executive Rick Woldenberg welcomed the ruling. “My hope is that this ruling is an opportunity for everyone to take a breath and think about what is important and what needs to get done,” he told Reuters.

If refunds follow, companies could recoup large sums. “They have a record of what they took from me, just reverse the gears, guys, and gimme my money back,” he said. “It’s our money. Give it back.”

Woldenberg insisted the lawsuit was not partisan. “It's about taxes. They owe us money... every American agrees we pay too much in taxes, and no one will want to pay a tax they don't have to pay.”

He added, “If the country needs revenues, then have a debate in Congress,” calling the outcome “a win for everyone.”

Trump issues order rolling back select tariff measures

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order revoking a set of additional import duties that had been introduced under emergency authorities. Those levies were put in place through a series of earlier executive actions declaring national emergencies tied to national security, foreign policy and economic concerns involving various countries.

The move follows the US Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to invalidate Trump’s broad global tariff measures, reported the Hindustan Times.

The new order specifically withdraws the extra ad valorem duties that had been imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

However, the underlying national emergency declarations issued in connection with those earlier orders will continue to remain in effect. The change applies only to the added tariffs introduced under IEEPA. Tariffs enacted under other statutory provisions are not affected by this decision.

US SC verdict on Trump's tariffs puts Indian-American lawyer in spotlight

Neal Katyal, the Chicago-born son of Indian immigrants, has become the public face of a Supreme Court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s expansive tariff regime. A former Acting Solicitor General, Katyal challenged Trump’s reliance on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy what he called sweeping and unlawful import taxes.

After the judgment, Katyal said, "Today, the United States Supreme Court stood up for the rule of law, and Americans everywhere. Its message was simple: Presidents are powerful, but our Constitution is more powerful still. In America, only Congress can impose taxes on the American people."

He added, "The US Supreme Court gave us everything we asked for in our legal case. Everything."

Reflecting on the broader implications, Katyal said, "This case has always been about the presidency, not any one president. It has always been about the separation of powers, and not the politics of the moment. I'm gratified to see our Supreme Court, which has been the bedrock of our government for 250 years, protect our most fundamental values."

Describing the experience, he said, "Just think about it like that. The son of immigrants was able to go to court and say on behalf of American small businesses, hey, this president is acting illegally. And I was able to present my case, have them ask really hard questions at me. It was a really intense oral argument. And at the end of it, they voted and we won."

He continued, "That is something so extraordinary about this country, the idea that we have a system that self-corrects, that allows us to say you might be the most powerful man in the world, but you still can't break the Constitution. I mean, that to me is what today is about."

Reiterating the court’s message, Katyal said, "Today, the United States Supreme Court stood up for the rule of law, stood up for Americans everywhere. Its message was simple. Presidents are powerful, but our constitution is more powerful still."

Standing outside the court, he added, "In America, only Congress, the chief justice writing for six justices said, only Congress can impose taxes on the American people. And that's what tariffs are. Tariffs are taxes,"

Taiwan, Hong Kong react to new US 10 per cent Tariff

Taiwan on Saturday said it is keeping a close watch on the US Supreme Court’s decision on tariffs and the Trump administration’s move to introduce a flat 10 per cent global levy, Reuters reported.

In a statement, Taiwan’s cabinet said the immediate effect on the island seems manageable but stressed that authorities remain alert. "While the initial impact on Taiwan appears limited, the government will closely monitor developments and maintain close communication with the United States," the island's cabinet said in a statement.

In Hong Kong, a senior official struck a different tone, suggesting the latest US tariff action could work to the city’s advantage as an international trading centre.

Christopher Hui, the secretary for financial services and the treasury, characterised the developments in the US as a "fiasco" in remarks to Commercial Radio Hong Kong, referring to President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a new 10% duty on imports entering the United States.

Chidambaram asks Centre to clarify impact of US tariff verdict

After the US Supreme Court invalidated President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs imposed under IEEPA, senior Congress leader P Chidambaram called on the Indian government to clarify how the ruling would affect the trade framework announced earlier this month between New Delhi and Washington.

In a recent column, Chidambaram had argued that if the court struck down the tariff order, both countries would revert to the status quo ante prior to April 2, 2025 — a situation that has now materialised. Referring to what he described as unilateral concessions by India under the framework, he asked, "What will happen to those concessions?"

The joint statement outlined zero tariffs on several US exports to India, a plan for India to import USD 500 billion in American goods including energy, and steps to ease certain non-tariff barriers. "What will happen to those promises?" he wrote.

With an Indian delegation in the US to finalise the agreement text, Chidambaram questioned the next steps. "An Indian team is now in the U.S. to finalise the text of the Framework Agreement. What will the team do now? The government must explain the impact of the judgement on the 'deal' that was announced on February 6 between the U.S. and India," Chidambaram wrote on X.