Judicial Independence & Separation of Powers: Lessons from US Supreme Court vs Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court judgment in Nine in Learning Resources Inc. vs. Trump (2025) reaffirmed constitutional limits on executive power. This has revived discussions on judicial independence and the role of courts in safeguarding constitutional governance.

Separation of Powers (Montesquieu’s Doctrine)

• Definition: Separation of powers refers to the division of governmental authority among different organs to prevent concentration of power and ensure checks and balances.
  • Legislature: Responsible for making laws. In India, this function is performed by Parliament.
  • Executive: Responsible for implementing and administering laws. This is exercised by the Government, the President, the Prime Minister, and the Council of Ministers.
  • Judiciary: Responsible for interpreting laws and ensuring their constitutional validity. This function is performed by the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate courts.
• Purpose: It ensures no single organ exceeds its constitutional limits, thereby safeguarding democratic governance and preventing authoritarian tendencies.
• Judicial Courage: When judges resist political pressure and personal interests to uphold justice and constitutional values, it reflects judicial courage.

Case Study- Trump vs U.S. Supreme Court (2026)

• Case: Nine in Learning Resources Inc. vs Trump (20 February 2026).
• Issue: The U.S. Constitution allows the President to impose emergency tariffs (import taxes), but these powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must remain accountable to Congress (the Legislature).
• Verdict: The U.S. Supreme Court declared Trump’s tariff action unconstitutional, drawing a clear distinction between the legitimate use and abuse of executive power.
• Judicial Independence in Practice: The U.S. Supreme Court has 9 judges — 6 appointed by Republican Presidents and 3 by Democratic Presidents.
  • Despite ideological divisions, three Republican-appointed judges voted against Donald Trump in a 6–3 ruling, showing that constitutional principles prevail over political loyalty.

Challenges to Judicial Independence in India

• Article 370 & Internet Rights (Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India,2020): 
  • Background: After the abrogation of Article 370, Jammu & Kashmir experienced a prolonged internet shutdown.
  • Judicial Recognition of Right: In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that internet access is integral to Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
  • Absence of Strong Enforcement: The Court recognised the right but refused to issue a Mandamus (a writ commanding the government to restore the internet immediately).
  • Implication: The reluctance to enforce the right through mandamus created a perception of judicial restraint in confronting executive authority.
• TN Governor and Pocket Veto (State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025): 
  • Background: In State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Governor withheld assent to several Bills, effectively exercising a pocket veto and delaying legislation passed by an elected government.
  • Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Court held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay or obstruct Bills, as this undermines the constitutional functioning of an elected state government.
  • Counter-move by the Centre: The government invoked Presidential Special Reference No. 1 of 2025 under Article 143, seeking the President to refer the matter back to the Supreme Court, effectively attempting to re-examine and dilute the Court’s order.

Key Lessons for the Indian Judiciary

• Primacy of the Constitution: The judiciary must uphold that the Constitution and institutions are supreme, and no political leader is above constitutional limits.
• Judicial Courage: True judicial independence requires courts to check executive overreach even when the executive is politically powerful or has appointed the judges.
• Learning from Global Precedents: As Indian courts frequently cite U.S. jurisprudence, they should also emulate the institutional independence demonstrated in Nine in Learning Resources Inc. vs. Trump, ensuring the rule of law prevails over political expediency.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

Judicial independence ultimately rests on the courage of courts to uphold constitutional supremacy and restrain executive overreach, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over political power.