特朗普回应美最高法院大法官关税质疑，还有“B计划”？

Core Viewpoint - The authority of President Trump to impose broad tariffs on trade partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, raising significant legal and economic implications for U.S. trade policy [1][2]. Group 1: Supreme Court Proceedings - The Supreme Court held a three-hour oral argument regarding Trump's tariff authority, with most justices expressing skepticism about the government's legal basis for the tariffs [2][3]. - The court consists of six conservative justices and three liberal justices, with the liberal justices openly opposing Trump's emergency tariff powers [3]. - Chief Justice Roberts questioned the absence of the term "tariff" in the IEEPA and emphasized that taxation is traditionally a congressional power, suggesting a potential limitation on presidential authority [3]. Group 2: Economic Impact of Tariffs - U.S. consumers are expected to bear over 55% of the tariff costs, with American businesses absorbing 22% and foreign exporters taking on 18% [3]. - The average effective tariff rate faced by U.S. consumers is estimated at 17.9%, the highest since 1934, leading to a projected 1.3% increase in price levels and an average household loss of $1,800 [4]. - By the end of 2025, these tariffs could increase the unemployment rate by 0.3 percentage points, rising to 0.7 percentage points by the end of 2026 [4]. Group 3: Potential Outcomes and Alternatives - If the Supreme Court rules against the emergency tariffs, companies involved in the lawsuit may receive refunds, while others could face complex administrative processes for reimbursement [5]. - The court may not entirely negate the president's emergency powers but could impose stricter limitations on the scope of tariffs that can be enacted unilaterally [6]. - Trump has mentioned a "second plan," indicating that alternative legal avenues exist for imposing tariffs, although these may be less effective than the IEEPA [5][6].