On February 23, 2026, the American legal and business landscapes were jolted by a major development: Neal Katyal, a prominent Indian-American constitutional lawyer and former Acting Solicitor General, announced the creation of a dedicated legal task force. Its mission? To fight for refunds on behalf of businesses and importers who paid billions in tariffs imposed under former President Donald Trump—tariffs that the Supreme Court recently ruled were unconstitutional.
This announcement came on the heels of a landmark 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which struck down most of Trump’s earlier tariff actions. According to Business Today, the Court found that the administration had overstepped its authority, reaffirming that the power to levy taxes and impose sweeping tariffs rests primarily with Congress, not the White House.
Katyal, who successfully argued the case before the Supreme Court, explained the legal team’s new focus in a televised interview. “We didn't specifically ask for refunds because our legal team saw it as a matter of course — if we win the case we do think refunds will come back,” he said. “We are today launching a task force to fight for those refunds. We will fight tooth and nail for them if the federal government tries to hold that money back.”
For many in the business community, this is more than a legal technicality—it’s about getting back what they see as rightfully theirs. Major business organizations wasted no time in supporting Katyal’s call. The National Retail Federation, which counts retail heavyweights like Walmart among its members, demanded “a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers.” The United States Chamber of Commerce put a number to it: roughly $133 billion in tariffs, now deemed invalid, should be reimbursed. Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s chief policy officer, argued that returning these funds would provide meaningful relief to more than 200,000 small-business importers and help spur economic growth in 2026.
The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant setback for Trump’s trade agenda, which had relied heavily on emergency powers to impose tariffs on imports from a range of countries. According to Devdiscourse and other agencies, the Court ruled that the administration’s use of emergency authority to impose tariffs, without Congressional approval, was illegal. This not only curtails the executive branch’s trade powers but also sends a clear message about the importance of checks and balances in American governance.
Katyal’s legal and constitutional arguments were at the heart of the case. As he explained on MS NOW, the ruling gave the challengers “everything that we asked for.” He stressed that the President could not bypass Congress to enact such sweeping measures, no matter how urgent the rationale. “If he (Trump) wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That’s what our Constitution requires,” Katyal stated, as reported by PTI and other outlets.
But the story doesn’t end with the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Trump’s previous actions. The administration has since floated the idea of a new 15% global tariff, again citing trade deficits as the justification. Katyal has been quick to challenge the legal foundation of this proposal as well, emphasizing that such policies must be pursued through constitutional channels. He pointed out inconsistencies in the government’s legal reasoning, noting that the United States Department of Justice had previously told the Court that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not designed to address trade deficits—the very rationale now being used for the new tariffs.
This critique has resonated beyond legal circles. Gita Gopinath of the International Monetary Fund weighed in on social media, writing that Katyal was “speaking International Economics 101,” and suggesting that the administration’s justification for the tariffs conflicts with basic macroeconomic distinctions. In other words, the debate isn’t just about legal process—it’s about economic fundamentals, too.
Katyal’s challenge underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to legal frameworks in policymaking. As he argued, relying on emergency powers for tariffs, especially when tied to trade deficit issues, is legally unfounded. This point is particularly relevant given the administration’s shifting justifications and the high stakes for businesses large and small.
For small businesses, the Supreme Court’s ruling—and the prospect of refunds—could be a lifeline. Katyal, who argued the case on their behalf, has repeatedly emphasized the real-world impact. According to Business Today, returning the funds would provide significant relief to more than 200,000 small-business importers, many of whom have struggled under the weight of the now-invalid tariffs. The Chamber of Commerce echoed this sentiment, saying the refunds would help support economic growth this year.
The ripple effects of the ruling extend beyond the United States. In a conversation reported by India Today, Katyal discussed the implications for India, small businesses, and the broader future of US trade policy. The judgment not only shifts the balance of power back toward Congress but also affects global supply chains and trade relations—particularly between the US and India, a country whose exports were directly impacted by the Trump-era tariffs.
Katyal, who was born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents and has held senior legal roles in Washington, spoke candidly about the inside legal strategy that led to victory. He detailed how the case played out in America’s highest court and what it means for the future of executive power in trade matters. The decision, he argued, reinforces the principle that major economic decisions require open debate and legislative consent, not unilateral executive action.
Legal experts agree that the Supreme Court’s ruling marks a watershed moment. It reinforces that sweeping tariff actions require Congressional approval, setting a precedent that is likely to influence future administrations—regardless of political affiliation. The message is clear: even in times of economic uncertainty, the Constitution’s checks and balances remain paramount.
As the legal battle shifts to the fight for refunds, all eyes are on the federal government’s next move. Will it return the $133 billion as demanded by business groups, or will a new round of litigation be necessary? Katyal has made it clear that he and his team are prepared to “fight tooth and nail” if the government tries to hold on to the money.
For now, businesses, legal scholars, and policymakers alike are watching closely, recognizing that this case is about more than just tariffs. It’s a test of constitutional process, economic policy, and the enduring power of the legislative branch in shaping America’s role in the global economy.
With the Supreme Court’s decision and Katyal’s continued advocacy, the stage is set for a new chapter in US trade policy—one where constitutional checks, economic realities, and the voices of small businesses are all part of the conversation.