Lawyer Who Beat Trump in Court Uses Admin's Own Argument to Defeat New Plan

Neal Katyal argues Trump's new tariff plan contradicts the administration's previous legal position.

Feb. 21, 2026 at 8:42pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The lawyer who successfully argued against Donald Trump's signature policy at the Supreme Court, leading to a major defeat for the administration, is now using the Trump team's own previous legal arguments to challenge the president's new plan to impose global tariffs.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles between the executive branch and the courts, as well as the importance of government agencies maintaining consistent legal positions to withstand judicial scrutiny.

The details

After the Supreme Court rejected Trump's tariff policy, the president announced a new plan to raise global tariffs to 15% using a law never before invoked by a president. However, lawyer Neal Katyal argues this new plan contradicts the administration's own previous legal arguments made in court, where they said the law in question did not apply to the president's concerns about trade deficits.

  • The Supreme Court rejected Trump's tariff policy several months ago.
  • Trump announced his new plan to raise global tariffs to 15% on February 21, 2026.

The players

Neal Katyal

The lawyer who successfully argued against Trump's tariff policy at the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump

The former president who is attempting to impose new global tariffs using a law his own administration previously argued did not apply.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: 'Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits,'”

— Neal Katyal (Twitter)

“If he 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.”

— Neal Katyal (Twitter)

What’s next

It remains to be seen how the courts will rule on the legality of Trump's new tariff plan, given the administration's previous legal arguments against using the statute in question.

The takeaway

This case highlights the challenges the executive branch faces in maintaining consistent legal positions, especially when pursuing policies that have been previously rejected by the courts. It also underscores the importance of the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in checking the president's authority.