释新闻｜美国最高法院多名法官质疑特朗普关税合法性，意味着什么？

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of President Trump's extensive tariff policy, which could have significant implications for the global economy and serve as a critical test of presidential power [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of Trump's comprehensive tariff policy, with oral arguments lasting over two and a half hours [2][3]. - Conservative and liberal justices raised pointed questions about whether Trump can defend his tariff policy using a 50-year-old law, suggesting it may represent an expansion of executive power [2][6]. - If the plaintiffs win, many of Trump's tariff measures could be overturned, requiring the government to refund companies that have paid tariffs and potentially nullifying recent trade agreements [3][12]. Group 2: Constitutional Authority - The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to impose taxes and tariffs, with Chief Justice John Roberts indicating that the court may invoke the "major questions doctrine," requiring explicit congressional authorization for significant economic actions [6][11]. - The Trump administration argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the president to impose tariffs in response to national emergencies, but challengers contend that "regulation" does not encompass the power to levy tariffs [10][12]. - The Supreme Court has historically granted the president considerable discretion in foreign affairs, but there are concerns that this could undermine the separation of powers [11][12]. Group 3: Economic Implications - The tariffs imposed under Trump's policy have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue from February 4 to September 23 [12]. - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, it could lead to significant economic disruptions, including the potential for a "Great Depression-like economic collapse" and serious diplomatic repercussions [12][14]. - The government is exploring alternative legal avenues to maintain its tariff policies if the court rules unfavorably, although these alternatives may be less flexible [14].