The US Supreme Court’s decision in Nine in Learning Resources Inc vs Trump on February 20 briefly cut through the turbulence of contemporary politics. The Court reaffirmed constitutional limits on executive power, even as personal attacks on Chief Justice John Roberts quickly followed.
Bringing sanity to political chaos often falls on the shoulders of the judiciary. But as the din rises, the voice of the judiciary weakens. Executive pressures and personal ambitions of judges together are devastating for the institution. In these times, the men, and the far too few women, manning the judicial posts become more crucial than the position itself.
The central dictum in the tariffs ruling is that the American Constitution, which empowers the President to exercise overarching emergency powers, also prohibits him from using them whimsically without being accountable to the US Congress. Exhibiting a triangulation of the three organs of the state, the USSC drew the bright line between the use and abuse of power.
The Indian judiciary has traditionally held the wisdom of the US Supreme Court in high esteem. Even recently, the Indian Supreme Court engaged with Obergefell vs Hodges (2015) as part of a broader line of US precedents from Loving vs Virginia (1967) onwards on gay rights.
The public opinion in America that its Supreme Court is partisan came in the wake of Trump vs Hawaii (2018) decision upholding travel bans from predominantly Muslim countries, and the interim order in Trump vs Sierra Club (2019), which enabled the diversion of defense funds for the border wall. Donald J Trump vs Norma Anderson (2024), which insulated Trump from disqualification despite the events surrounding the insurrection, reinforced the perception.
On the Indian side too, the same perception formed after the Article 370 Case (Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020)) when the Indian Supreme Court declined to issue mandamus to the government to restore internet services in the State of Jammu and Kashmir despite recognising it as a part of fundamental right Article 19(1)(a).
Recently, the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governors’ case (State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)) cracked down heavily on the Governor’s pocket veto practice. However, the Court was again reigned in through the device of the Presidential Special Reference 1 of 2025.
The US press has lauded the Learning Resources decision as exemplary. Three out of the six judges appointed by the Republican governments declared that the President’s action breached constitutional boundaries. The majority opinion, penned down by Chief Justice Roberts, speaks for itself, and was included, besides Roberts, two Republican judges, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and three Democrat judges, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The remaining three Republican judges, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Samuel Alito, dissented. The independence of the opinions of the justices is deservingly applauded despite clear political leanings.
The strength of the predominant Republican Court to rule against the wishes of the President, and that too in a matter of such high import, is truly inspirational. This is a clear shoutout to all courts to uphold the promises and values enshrined in their Constitutions.
Today, the challenges faced by the judiciary worldwide are more similar than ever. The Indian Supreme Court shouldn’t ignore the clear signal of the US Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy had observed in his testimony in 2007 before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, “Judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do as they please. Judicial independence is conferred so judges can do as they must.” If the US Supreme Court has done so, the Indian Supreme Court can too, and so it shall.
The writer is senior advocate
