"US Supreme Court affirms constitutional limits on Presidential taxing power," says key litigator Neal Katyal

Katyal, who serves as the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, described the ruling as a sweeping endorsement of the arguments advanced in the case challenging what plaintiffs called unconstitutional taxation by the executive branch.

In his statetement on X, he wrote, "Today, the US 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. The US Supreme Court gave us everything we asked for in our legal case. Everything."

"I'm grateful for the leadership of the Liberty Justice Center, and in particular for the brilliant advocacy by its chair, Sara Albrecht, who led the fight when others wouldn't and was dauntless in its defense of our constitutional order. I'm also grateful to the five small business owners who stood up against these unjust, unconstitutional taxes. By taking a stand, they have delivered crucial relief to tens of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers across the country," the statement read further.

"Finally, I lack the words to properly thank my brilliant Milbank team, especially Colleen Roh Sinzdak and Sami Ilagan, who worked with me day and night for many months to craft the winning argument. This case has always been about the presidency, not any one president. It has always been about 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," the statement concluded.

Katyal, a partner at the global law firm Milbank LLP, has argued dozens of cases before the nation's highest court and is widely regarded as one of the country's foremost constitutional advocates. His academic and litigation work has long focused on executive power, national security law, and the structural safeguards embedded in the Constitution.

The case, backed by the Liberty Justice Center and a group of small business owners, centered on whether the president could unilaterally impose taxes without congressional authorization. In siding with the challengers, the Court reaffirmed that taxing authority rests exclusively with Congress under Article I of the Constitution.

By emphasizing that the dispute concerned "the presidency, not any one president," Katyal underscored the broader institutional stakes -- a theme consistent with his scholarship and courtroom advocacy.

In an interview with CNN's Kaitlan Collins, he said, "Oftentimes in these high profile cases, there are 5 to 4. But this one was 6 to 3. And notably with two of President Trump's three appointees voting against him."

When asked if he thinks President Trumo could've actually done something to change the minds of Supreme Court Justices, he said, "He could've behaved in a constitutional way. And not in 'I am the President, I'll do whatever I want.' It is really hard to win a case against the President. It has only happened once or twice."(ANI)