特朗普：将请求最高法院“快速裁决”全球关税案，若胜诉股市会大涨，否则巨震

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of a U.S. appellate court ruling that deemed most of the global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration illegal, and Trump's intention to appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn this decision [1][4][10]. Group 1: Legal and Economic Implications - Trump plans to appeal the appellate court's ruling to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the urgency of a quick resolution due to the tariffs' impact on the nation's financial structure [3][4]. - The appellate court's decision indicates that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the authority to impose tariffs, which could significantly affect U.S. trade policy [4][10]. - If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling, it would severely limit Trump's ability to impose tariffs, undermining his economic strategy to compel companies to invest in the U.S. [10][11]. Group 2: Market Reactions - Following the announcement of the appellate court's ruling, U.S. stock markets experienced declines, with the S&P 500 down approximately 1% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping over 380 points [1][4]. - Trump attributes the market downturn to uncertainty surrounding the tariff situation, suggesting that a favorable ruling could lead to a significant market rally [1][4]. Group 3: Alternative Legal Strategies - The U.S. Treasury Secretary expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would support Trump's use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs but is also preparing alternative legal strategies in case of a loss [9][10]. - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, the administration may resort to other legal frameworks, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, to impose tariffs, albeit with less efficiency [9][10]. Group 4: Potential Consequences of Ruling - Legal experts warn that a Supreme Court ruling against the tariffs could lead to significant economic repercussions, including potential financial collapse due to the loss of tariff revenue, which totaled $159 billion as of July [10][11]. - The ruling could also set a precedent affecting the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress regarding trade policy [10][11].