法院叫停特朗普关税，到底是怎么回事？

Group 1 - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, specifically the "fentanyl tariffs" and "global retaliatory tariffs," exceeded presidential authority and are therefore invalid [1][4] - The "fentanyl tariffs" include a 25% tariff on products from Canada and Mexico (reduced to 10% for Canadian energy products) and a 20% tariff on China [2][4] - The "global retaliatory tariffs" consist of a 10% base tariff on all countries and additional tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on 57 countries, with tariffs on China peaking at 125% [2][6] Group 2 - The court emphasized that while the president has the authority to manage tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), this authority is limited and cannot be used to impose unrestricted tariffs [5][6] - The court rejected the government's argument that tariffs could be used to compel other countries to address the fentanyl crisis, stating that such reasoning would allow the government to act beyond legislative intent [5][6] - The court also noted that the U.S. trade deficit does not justify declaring an emergency under IEEPA to impose unlimited tariffs [6][7] Group 3 - The Trump administration has announced plans to appeal the ruling, but the initial ruling is expected to be executed immediately unless a stay is granted by the court [8][10] - If the Trump administration fails to comply with the ruling, it could lead to a constitutional crisis, as federal courts rely on government enforcement for their rulings [11][12] - Historically, there have been few instances of a president openly defying federal court rulings, and the Trump administration has typically expressed disagreement while respecting court decisions [13][19] Group 4 - The ruling's plaintiffs included small businesses affected by the tariffs and state governments, with a notable political mix among the states involved [17][18] - The ruling was unanimous among the judges, including one appointed by Trump, indicating a complex relationship between the judiciary and the executive [17][18] - Despite the ruling, the Trump administration has a history of issuing numerous executive orders, many of which have faced legal challenges, indicating a pattern of contentious governance [19][20]