TOI correspondent from Washington: In an extraordinary and unprecedented attack on a revered 236-year-old institution that dates back nearly a century to his ancestors’ arrival in the US, President Donald Trump has accused the US Supreme Court of being influenced by foreign interests after it struck down his “Emancipation Day” tariffs in a 6-3 opinion. In a White House news conference and social media posts after the legal and political setback, Trump lashed out against the top court, calling its majority “sycophants to the radical left” and “idiots” who were “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.” He alleged that the court was influenced by external global forces, while leveling strong criticism against the plaintiffs, which included Chicago-based toy seller Learning Resources, which imports educational toys, STEM kits and classroom supplies from India.He said angrily, “I know the people who brought the lawsuit … they are big traitors … they are un-American mudslingers who want to see our country fail.”
The US President also appeared to be referring to Indian-American lawyer Neel Katyal, who argued the case before the Supreme Court representing Learning Resources and other plaintiffs, and who has been a thorn in the side of Trump’s MAGA administration. The case also involved another Indian-American lawyer, Pratik Shah, who was the lead counsel for Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, two educational toy companies that challenged the President’s authority under the IEEPA. The Supreme Court consolidated all the cases, and Katyal, who was originally a lawyer for the Liberty Justice Center, a legal organization that handled the case for five other plaintiffs affected by the tariffs, won the right to argue after a coin toss. A small family-owned business, Learning Resources imports do-it-yourself science kits, Montessori-style wooden toys and sensory equipment and yoga balls like BubblePlush from Indian companies like Funskool and Lighthouse Learning. According to company officials, they turned against the administration after they were due $14 million in tariff payments in 2025, nearly bankrupting them. Both Learning Resources and Katyal made statements after the judicial victory that the case was about the president’s powers to impose tariffs, not any one president. “It has always been about separation of powers, not current politics. “I’m glad to see that our Supreme Court, which has been the foundation of our government for 250 years, is protecting our most fundamental values,” Katyal said. But Trump has not wavered in his vitriolic attacks on the Supreme Court, even attacking the three conservative justices who joined with three liberals in the 6-3 opinion. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth — two of them,” he said, getting personal, referring to Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Comey Barrett, both of whom he nominated to the SC during his first term. Third, Chief Justice John Roberts is the choice of George W. Bush Jr. Trump was at a meeting of US governors on Friday morning when an aide passed him a note about the Supreme Court decision. According to multiple reports, the President was furious at the “mess around the courts” and quickly ended the meeting to prepare his response. He appeared in the White House briefing room a few hours later, still looking angry. Asked whether the six justices who voted to slash his tariffs would be welcomed at Tuesday’s State of the Union address, Trump responded, “They’re barely invited. “Honestly, I wouldn’t care if they came.”The SC decision is a significant legal and political blow to Trump, who had imposed the sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), citing national security and economic sovereignty. In its opinion, the Court held that the President had exceeded the authority granted by statute, thereby strengthening Congress’s primacy over trade and taxation powers under the Constitution. The rapprochement between the three liberal and three conservative justices underlined the institutional nature of the decision, which was based on statutory interpretation and constitutional structure rather than partisan ideology.Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum noted that the ruling reaffirms the constitutional separation of powers when expanding executive action. Does this decision undermine future efforts to unilaterally reshape America? Trade policy remains to be seen, but the immediate fallout has strained relations between the White House and the nation’s highest court, which the president believed could bend to his will.