In a sharp rebuke to his trade agenda, US President Donald Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court of the United States on Friday after it struck down his sweeping global tariffs, calling the decision “ridiculous” and accusing some justices of undermining the country’s economic interests.In a strongly worded response, Trump said those members of the court who voted against what he described as a “very acceptable and proper method of tariffs should be ashamed of themselves,” adding that he would pursue alternative measures to impose new duties.

Court blocks sweeping tariffs

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, held that Trump had exceeded his legal authority when he imposed tariffs on nearly all US trading partners last year. The decision dealt a major blow to a cornerstone of Trump’s economic and trade policy, which relied heavily on tariffs to pressure foreign governments and reshape global supply chains.The majority found that the president’s use of emergency powers to justify the tariffs went beyond what Congress had authorized, effectively invalidating the broad measures that had targeted dozens of countries.Lashing out at the decision, the US president added in his series of Truth Social posts, “To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that? They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. What license has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? But now the Court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our Country, a much more powerful Right than many people thought we had.”Read more: Trump reacts to US Supreme Court verdict invalidating his tariffs

Trump targets justices, including his own appointees

Trump singled out two justices he had appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, expressing frustration that they ruled against him despite his nomination.“What happened today with the two justices that I appointed against great opposition… never seems to happen with Democrats,” Trump said.He also criticised Chief Justice Roberts, accusing him of leading an effort that would allow foreign countries to continue “ripping us off,” while praising dissenting justices including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh for what he called their “strength, wisdom, and love of our country.”Further doubling on tariffs, Trump said, “In actuality, while I am sure they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a President’s ability to both regulate Trade, and impose TARIFFS, more powerful and crystal clear, rather than less. There will no longer be any doubt, and the Income coming in, and the protection of our Companies and Country, will actually increase because of this decision. Based on longstanding Law and Hundreds of Victories to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS. The ability to block, embargo, restrict, license, or impose any other condition on a Foreign Country’s ability to conduct Trade with the United States under IEEPA, has been fully confirmed by this decision. In order to protect our Country, a President can actually charge more TARIFFS than I was charging in the past under the various other TARIFF authorities, which have also been confirmed, and fully allowed.”Also read: Why US Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s trade tariffs; explained in 10 points

Defiant tone, new tariffs announced

Despite the setback, Trump struck a defiant tone, insisting his administration would move forward with new tariffs using alternative legal authorities. Within hours of the ruling, he announced plans to impose a fresh across-the-board 10 per cent tariff, signaling his intent to continue using trade measures as a central tool of economic policy.“Those members of the Supreme Court who voted against our very acceptable and proper method of TARIFFS should be ashamed of themselves. Their decision was ridiculous but, now the adjustment process begins, and we will do everything possible to take in even more money than we were taking in before!” said Trump.Trump described tariffs as vital to national security and economic strength, claiming they had helped boost markets, reduce illicit drug flows, and pressure foreign governments.He also took digs at Democrats saying, “The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote “NO” against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation. Others think they’re being “politically correct,” which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and “LAPDOGS” for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!”

Markets and global trade face renewed uncertainty

The ruling and Trump’s swift response injected fresh uncertainty into global markets and trade relations. Businesses and trading partners now face questions about the scope and legality of future US tariff actions, as well as the broader direction of American trade policy under Trump’s leadership.While the court’s decision represents a significant legal constraint on presidential tariff powers, Trump made clear that his administration would explore “methods, practices, statutes, and other authorities” to continue imposing trade barriers.The confrontation marks one of the most direct clashes between Trump and the Supreme Court, underscoring the high stakes surrounding tariffs and executive power in shaping US economic strategy.

NEW DELHI: Congress on Friday hailed US Supreme Court’s ruling on President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on different countries and said that the verdict shows that “American system of checks and balances still seems to be working.“Hours after the US Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 verdict invalidating tariffs imposed by Trump, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said, “Hats off to the US Supreme Court for striking down President Trump’s entire tariff strategy! Quite an amazing decision given its ideological composition. A 6-3 verdict is decisive.”“The American system of checks and balances still seems to be working,” he added.Veteran Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram also demanded that the government must explain the impact of the judgment on the “deal” that was announced on February 6 between the US and India.Chidambaram said he had stated that if the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s imposition of tariffs, the result would be that the US and India would revert to the status quo ante of before April 2, 2025.“Meanwhile, the US has extracted several concessions from India without conceding any. What will happen to those concessions? The joint statement announced Zero tariff on many goods that the US will export to India; that India intends to import USD 500 billion worth of goods from the U.S.; that India will not buy Russian oil; that India will address the non-tariff barriers to U.S. goods, and so on,” the former finance minister said.“What will happen to those promises? An Indian team is now in the U.S. to finalise the text of the Framework Agreement. What will the team do now?” Chidambaram said.The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.The 6-3 decision centred on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping reciprocal tariffs Trump levied on nearly every other country.The majority found that the Constitution very clearly gives the Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. Trump, however, said “nothing changes” in the trade deal with India in the wake of the Supreme Court verdict and responded to the ruling by announcing an additional 10 per cent global levies on items imported into the US.Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him, calling them “fools and lapdogs”. “The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said in a news conference at the White House Friday, just hours after the verdict came in.

The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down many tariffs imposed by Donald Trump, ruling that a key emergency law he relied on does not give presidents the authority to impose such duties. The 6–3 decision was a major defeat for Trump and a relatively rare instance of the court checking his efforts in a second term that has relied heavily on tariffs as economic and foreign policy leverage against both allies and adversaries.The majority coalition brought together Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

At the center of the case was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute that allows the president to regulate imports to address national security, foreign policy or economic threats. Trump had invoked the law to justify sweeping tariffs on nearly every country, citing “large and persistent” trade deficits and failures by China, Canada and Mexico to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl and other drugs into the United States. The court, however, concluded the law does not authorize tariffs.The ruling has wide economic and political implications. It raises the prospect that the administration may have to refund more than $100 billion in tariff revenue to importers and leaves unresolved how businesses or consumers affected by higher prices could be compensated. Trump reacted angrily and quickly moved to impose new tariffs under different laws, including the 1974 Trade Act, signaling the fight over presidential tariff powers is likely to continue.Also read | Nothing changes for India: Donald Trump’s big statement on trade dealTrump also said the court decision would not affect the ongoing India–US trade deal. Speaking after announcing a new 10% global tariff, he said the arrangement with India would remain unchanged and that New Delhi would continue paying tariffs while the United States would not.“Nothing changes, they’ll be paying tariffs, and we will not be paying tariffs. So, the deal with India is they pay tariffs. This is a reversal for what it used to be. I think Prime Minister Modi is a great gentleman, a great man, actually, but he was much smarter than the people that he was against in terms of the United States. He was ripping us off, India. So we made a deal with India, it’s a fair deal now, and we are not paying tariffs to them and they are paying tariffs. We did a little flip,” said Trump.

1. The emergency law does not mention tariffs

IEEPA authorises the president to “regulate … importation” to address unusual and extraordinary threats to national security, foreign policy or the economy. But the statute does not use the words tariff, duty, levy or tax, which the court said was significant.

2. No president had used IEEPA this way before

The majority stressed that before Donald Trump, presidents had not understood IEEPA to allow tariffs. That history supported the view that Congress never granted such power in the law.Follow US Supreme Court Rejects Trump Tariffs Live Updates

3. Tariffs are different from other emergency tools

The court said tariffs differ from actions like quotas or embargoes because they “operate directly on domestic importers to raise revenue for the Treasury,” placing them outside the statute’s intended scope.

4. Government reading would give sweeping power

Under the administration’s interpretation, the court said, a president could impose duties “of unlimited amount and duration, on any product from any country,” a level of authority the justices said Congress had not clearly granted.

5. Majority relied on the major questions doctrine

Three conservative justices in the majority — Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett — applied the principle that major economic or political powers claimed by the executive must be clearly authorised by Congress.

6. All six majority justices agreed on the core point

Despite differences in reasoning, all six concluded that IEEPA is silent on tariff authority and historically was not understood to include it.

7. Roberts’ central conclusion

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate … importation,’ as granted to the president in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.”

8. Some justices noted other tools exist in the law

The opinion said IEEPA allows measures such as quotas or embargoes on imports during emergencies, but that does not mean tariffs — a separate and revenue-raising instrument — are included.

9. Tariffs had broad economic effects

The struck-down tariffs had pushed up prices of imported goods including furniture, apparel and electronics. Economists said prices may not fall quickly because Trump is already pursuing replacement tariffs and companies may keep prices high amid uncertainty.

10. Decision creates legal and practical fallout

The ruling opens the door to possible refunds of more than $100 billion in tariff revenue to importers, with lower courts, the US Court of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection and the Treasury Department expected to oversee the process. Importers are directly eligible, while other businesses may seek reimbursement through lawsuits; compensation for consumers is unclear.Within hours of the decision, Trump announced he would impose a new 10% tariff on all imports starting February 24 by invoking Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, a provision no president had previously used, and said he would pursue further tariffs through Section 301 investigations into other countries’ trade practices.

GURGAON: In a rare display of integrity, a scrap dealer in Faridabad returned nearly 100 grams (around 10 tolas) of gold jewellery worth approximately ₹15 lakh to a family six months after they had unknowingly sold it as scrap. The incident pertains to Ashok Sharma and his family, who had stored their gold ornaments in a small box placed inside a sack at their residence before leaving for the Kumbh Mela in January last year, in an attempt to safeguard the valuables from theft. However, during Diwali cleaning, the sack was inadvertently disposed of and sold as household scrap to a local scrap trader, Haji Akhtar Khan.

The family realised the ornaments were missing only while preparing for the Diwali puja and subsequently began searching for them. They approached the scrap dealer two to three times over the following months, but the jewellery could not be traced at that time.Explaining the sequence of events, Haji Akhtar Khan said, “They brought the scrap six months ago and sold it. At that time, we did not notice anything unusual. After about two months, they returned and informed us that some of their gold jewellery might have been in the scrap. I told them to look for it, but if they had come within 20 days or a month, we could have checked the CCTV footage. By then, too much time had passed and nothing was found.” He further stated, “Day before yesterday, while examining some scrap material, I found a plastic packet. Someone might have kept it there assuming it was brass. I suspected it could be theirs and got it verified by a jeweller, who confirmed it was 100% gold, 22-karat, weighing 100 grams. I decided it belonged to Sharma Ji and no one else, and therefore it should be returned. We believe in earning through hard work and cannot keep someone else’s property. My family also agreed that it must be returned.”Ashok Sharma, expressing his gratitude at the ACP office, said, “We suffered a significant loss during Diwali when, by mistake, 10 tolas of gold went into the scrap. Today, Haji Akhtar Khan Sahab has set an example of honesty. He came to the ACP Sahab’s office, handed over the gold, and informed us to collect our belongings. I thank him from the bottom of my heart.”ACP Jitesh Malhotra said the scrap dealer operates near the Agra Canal and had purchased the scrap from the family six months ago. He confirmed that the recovered items perfectly matched the list provided by the Sharmas. Commending the dealer’s honesty, he said such integrity is rare and advised families to store valuables in bank lockers or other secure places rather than at home in a manner that carries risk. The incident has drawn widespread appreciation locally, with residents stating that it reflects honesty that transcends religious boundaries.

The stage is set for a blockbuster series decider as Australia Women take on India Women in the third and final T20I at the Adelaide Oval on Saturday, February 21. With the three-match series locked at 1-1, this encounter promises to be a thrilling contest.

India began the tour in spectacular fashion, winning the rain-affected first T20I in Sydney by 21 runs via the DLS method, courtesy of Arundhati Reddy’s brilliant 4/22 . However, Australia bounced back strongly in the second match in Canberra. Young opener Georgia Voll starred with a sensational 88 off 57 balls, guiding the hosts to 163/5 . In response, India’s chase faltered despite starts from Shafali Verma (29) and Smriti Mandhana (31), as Ashleigh Gardner’s 3/22 and the Australian attack restricted them to 144/9, leveling the series .

The upcoming match carries immense significance for India, who are yet to secure a bilateral series win in Australia across any format. A victory here would be a historic achievement and a massive confidence booster ahead of the T20 World Cup later this year.

AUS-W vs IND-W, 2nd T20I: Match Details

• Date and Time: February 21; 01:45 pm IST/ 08:15 am GMT/ 6:45 pm Local
• Venue: Adelaide Oval, Adelaide

AUS-W vs IND-W Head-to-Head Record in T20Is

Matches played: 37 | Australia Women won: 28 | India Women won: 07 | No result: 02

Adelaide Oval Pitch Report

The pitch at the Adelaide Oval is expected to offer a well-balanced contest between bat and ball. It is generally known as a good batting surface where the ball comes onto the bat nicely, and the fast outfield gives batters full value for their shots through the gaps . For the upcoming match, it is described as offering more trueness than the surface in Canberra, which should allow Indian batters to trust their shots more.

However, pacers are also expected to play a significant role throughout the game. The surface traditionally provides good bounce and carry, which has historically allowed fast bowlers to dominate.

Squads

India: Shafali Verma, Smriti Mandhana, Jemimah Rodrigues, Harmanpreet Kaur (c), Deepti Sharma, Richa Ghosh (wk), Amanjot Kaur, Vaishnavi Sharma, Kranti Gaud, Shree Charani, Renuka Singh Thakur, Bharti Fulmali, Sneh Rana, Arundhati Reddy, Shreyanka Patil, Gunalan Kamalini

Australia: Phoebe Litchfield, Ellyse Perry, Beth Mooney (wk), Georgia Voll, Annabel Sutherland, Ashleigh Gardner, Tahlia McGrath, Kim Garth, Sophie Molineux (c), Megan Schutt, Darcie Brown, Grace Harris, Nicola Carey, Georgia Wareham

Also READ: Fans erupt as Georgia Voll’s blazing knock steers Australia to a dominant win over India in 2nd T20I

AUS-W vs IND-W: Today’s Match Prediction

Case 1:

• Australia Women wins the toss and bats first
• Australia Women’s powerplay score: 55-65
• Australia Women’s total score: 170-180

Case 2:

• India Women wins the toss and bats first
• India Women’s powerplay score: 50-60
• India Women’s total score: 160-170

Match result: Team batting first to win the contest.

Also READ: Radha Yadav propels India A into the final of Women’s Asia Cup Rising Stars 2026

This article was first published at WomenCricket.com, a Cricket Times company.

New Delhi: During the 2016 T20 World Cup, the then Netherlands captain Peter Borren, in one of the press conferences, was almost in tears and made an emotional plea to the International Cricket Council (ICC) to spend more on the Associates. “There is a sort of malaise towards Associate cricket. To grow further in the game, we always hear it is not commercially viable,” he had said.“Look at Indian television, highlights of us beating England are everywhere. Clearly, fans enjoy watching new teams succeed. So give us the opportunity. Let us compete, and let us be seen,” he had said, referring to the highlights of the Netherlands beating England in the 2009 T20 Cricket World Cup.

Cut to the present, the noise is again getting louder, with Associates pushing Full Members to the edge, and it all started with the Netherlands again.Pakistan had slipped from 98/2 to 114/7 while chasing 148 against the Netherlands. Max O’Dowd dropped a catch in the penultimate over, and Faheem Ashraf became the hero with three sixes and two fours.India had a disastrous start against the USA and were reeling at 63/4 by the 10th over. Shubham Ranjane got down low but could not hold on to a Suryakumar Yadav catch. Surya went on to score a match-defining 84 off 49 balls.Having earlier reduced England to 57/3, Nepal eventually restricted them to 184/7. During the chase, they were 175/5, needing 10 runs off seven balls. Lokesh Bam was well set on 35 off 15 balls. Over the next four deliveries, Bam scored just three runs and England scraped through after a tight final over from Sam Curran.Scotland, who replaced Bangladesh, had England on the ropes as Tom Banton and Will Jacks occupied the crease in their chase of 153. Things had slowed to near run-a-ball over the previous three overs, and England now needed eight off the final six balls. Jacks then struck a six and a four to take them past the finish line.

A couple of days later, England were 105/5 in the 13th over against Italy before eventually posting a strong 202. During the chase, Italy surged to 173/7 following 34 runs in two overs. Grant Stewart was set on 44 off 20 balls. The first-timers needed 30 off the last 12 deliveries. Sam Curran then removed Stewart, crushing their hopes.Not as dramatic perhaps, but Afghanistan got past the UAE in the final over, while the Netherlands pushed India despite looking down and out at one stage.Before the India vs Netherlands game, a broadcaster arrogantly parroted the pre-tournament claim that a 300-run total would be breached. Instead, the Men in Blue posted 193/6, restrained by Logan van Beek’s three-wicket haul.The eight Associate teams have made themselves count at this T20 World Cup and have not been the pushovers many expected them to be. The gap, as is repeated every two years, is reducing between the Associates and the Full Member nations.The reason for results going unfavourably for the Associates can be attributed quite simply to the lack of top-level opportunities and the inability to absorb pressure at key moments.

“Until you play matches, you won’t be in those situations. No matter how much net practice you do, how do you come out of tight situations like 80/5? Or how do you win a match if you need 30 runs in the last two overs? You won’t feel it until you experience it on the ground,” said UAE coach Lalchand Rajput.“The more matches you play against good teams, the more situations you face. You might win only one out of five games, but it builds confidence that the next time you are in the same situation, you will be able to win,” he added.Namibia coach Craig Williams, too, didn’t mince his words and has asked for more matches for the associates, if the ICC wants to make the sport global.“I think it’s not rocket science. If you play more cricket, you’re going to get better. And especially if you play more competitive cricket. So I think all the associate nations are calling out for the same thing. It’s been a number of years since I was playing as well,” he had said ahead of their last match against Pakistan in Colombo.Players, coaches and even administrators have urged the ICC to introduce more fixtures in the next Future Tours Programme.

Italy’s Grant Stewart hits a six during the T20 World Cup cricket match against England in Kolkata. (AP)

“There should be more matches, and definitely the ICC is working on it. That’s why this T20 World Cup has 20 teams. Hopefully, it will keep growing and more Associates will follow. If we qualify for the World Cup, we should get bigger chances to showcase ourselves,” Rajput said.Canada captain Saad Bin Zafar agreed. “If there is one thing I would like to change, it would be Associate countries getting more opportunities to compete against the best nations because that is the learning ground. That is where you learn,” he said after their loss to Afghanistan.Netherlands all-rounder Bas de Leede used the World Cup stage to remind everyone that his team has no cricket scheduled until June, with their next assignment being a World Cup qualifier.“We’ve shown the level Associate cricket is at right now. We can only ask for more opportunities against big teams because that is ultimately how we are going to improve as a collective,” said De Leede.The challenge of finding space in the calendar and the financial hurdles involved are not lost on those advocating for more matches.“The calendar doesn’t allow more matches with Full Members because Associate countries mostly play among themselves. It is also about TV rights, media and sponsorship, as everyone focuses on the top 10 teams. They have challenges as well. But this World Cup has shown that Associate countries are good enough to receive more funding and play more matches,” Rajput said.De Leede also offered a solution.“I understand the financial reasoning, but maybe a tri-nation series involving two Full Members could be an option. I recently saw a post about a European T20 series involving England, Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Italy,” he said.“We saw how close Italy pushed England. There are a lot of options. Normally during the World Cup, it gets attention and then it fades away,” he added.History, though, does not look promising.After reaching the Super Eight stage and becoming one of the stories of the 2024 T20 World Cup, the USA did not play a single Full Member until this edition came around.The Netherlands, who reached the Super 12 of the 2022 T20 World Cup and shocked South Africa, did not play a single T20I between that day in Adelaide and a match against Nepal 479 days later in February 2024. Their only game against a Full Member in that period came against Ireland in the build-up to the 2024 edition.T20 leagues bridging the gap

USA’s Andries Gous, of Desert Vipers, celebrates after scoring a hundred during Qualifier 1 of the ILT20 match against MI Emirates. (Creimas)

A major reason for improved performances, despite the lack of opportunities at the highest level, can be attributed to the growth of T20 leagues. More leagues mean more demand for players and more platforms for Associate cricketers to showcase their skills. USA wicketkeeper-batter Andries Gous underlined this with an unbeaten 120 for Desert Vipers against MI Emirates in the recently concluded ILT20.Curran, who helped keep two Associates at bay, acknowledged that more matches play a role. “The Associate nations are playing more often and getting much better. They are being exposed to better cricket and better grounds,” he said.UAE captain Muhammad Waseem, who plays for MI Emirates in the ILT20, shared dressing rooms with the likes of Rashid Khan, Chris Woakes, Kieron Pollard, Shakib Al Hasan, Jonny Bairstow and Nicholas Pooran ahead of the T20 World Cup.“We’ve learned to improve by playing alongside the best players in leagues. In the same way, if we play Test-playing nations, we will continue to get better. Then, in big tournaments, you will get even more competitive matches,” he told TimesofIndia.com.The presence of experienced heads in the dugout has helped as well.Stuart Law is the head coach of Nepal. Ian Harvey is the bowling consultant. Gary Kirsten is Namibia’s consultant. Rajput brings his wealth of experience from the Indian dressing room to the UAE. Duleep Mendis heads Oman, while Pubudu Dassanayake coaches the USA.Having done all they can on the field, the Associates can only hope they receive more opportunities before the next edition rolls around. Otherwise, the same conversations and pleas will be repeated in Australia and New Zealand.