Neal Katyal, a prominent Indian-American attorney, is set to argue a pivotal case before the US Supreme Court on Wednesday. This case, described by former President Donald Trump as “one of the most important in the History of the Country,” will determine whether the President can impose extensive tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or if such powers belong solely to Congress.

Trump had initially planned to attend the hearing but later decided against it, stating, “I do not want to distract from the importance of the decision.” Katyal, who previously secured a 7-4 ruling in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the President's authority to impose tariffs, will argue for the plaintiffs in this landmark case. He believes that the outcome could significantly impact the nation’s economic status, saying, “If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”

The Supreme Court has allocated 80 minutes for the arguments, exceeding the usual 60 minutes, highlighting the case's significance. The courtroom is expected to be filled with spectators, as the proceedings attract global attention.

Katyal is no stranger to high-profile legal battles, having argued over 50 cases before the Supreme Court since 2000. He gained recognition as co-counsel for Al Gore in the Bush v Gore case and has challenged various Trump administration policies, including the travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. Born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents, Katyal graduated from Yale Law School, where he was mentored by renowned constitutional law scholar Akhil Amar.

The case also involves another Indian-American attorney, Pratik Shah, who has represented educational toy companies challenging the presidential authority under IEEPA. The Supreme Court has consolidated all related cases for Wednesday’s hearing, and Katyal secured the opportunity to present his arguments after a coin toss, according to the SCOTUS blog.