给特朗普放水后，美国共和党大法官，被自己定的规则坑惨

Core Points - The trade policy has become a central issue in Trump's agenda after his return to the White House, with tariffs on goods from major trading partners increasing from an average of 3% to 25% [1] - The policy aims to reduce the long-standing trade deficit and protect domestic manufacturing, but faced strong opposition from the American Importers Alliance, leading to legal challenges [1][6] - The legal theory of "major questions doctrine" has emerged, requiring explicit congressional authorization for significant economic or political policies, which has been used to challenge Biden's policies but now complicates Trump's tariff measures [2][3] Group 1 - Trump's tariffs cover $2.3 trillion in imports, including a 25% tariff on Chinese goods and a 20% tariff on EU cars [6] - The New York International Trade Court ruled that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs as a regular trade policy, which was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court [6][7] - The legal challenges highlight a growing legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority that originally aimed to limit executive power but now restricts a Republican president's policies [7][11] Group 2 - The "major questions doctrine" was first introduced in a 2014 case regarding EPA regulations, evolving to require congressional authorization for significant economic policies [3][5] - The Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan was struck down under this doctrine, emphasizing its application to major economic impacts [5] - The potential overturning of Trump's tariffs could lead to retaliatory tariffs from the EU and China, significantly impacting U.S. agricultural exports and potentially reducing GDP growth by 1.2% [7][12] Group 3 - The case reflects deep-seated issues within the U.S. political system, where judicial decisions are increasingly viewed through a partisan lens [11] - The Supreme Court faces a critical decision that could either limit the application of the major questions doctrine, uphold it to strike down tariffs, or create exceptions that may lead to further controversy [12] - Public trust in the Supreme Court has reached a historic low of 38%, indicating potential political polarization stemming from the court's handling of this case [12]