特朗普关税折戟美国最高法院 他手中还有这些牌可打

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump cannot impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but he has alternative legal frameworks to attempt to rebuild a "tariff wall" [1][18]. Group 1: Alternative Legal Frameworks for Tariffs - Trump has at least five alternative options to impose tariffs, which come with more restrictions and procedural constraints compared to IEEPA, limiting his ability to set tariffs freely [19]. - The alternatives include: - Section 232: Allows tariffs based on national security threats, with no limit on tariff rates or duration [20]. - Section 201: Permits tariffs if import growth harms domestic manufacturers, with a maximum tariff increase of 50% and an initial duration of four years [22][24]. - Section 301: Authorizes tariffs for actions harming U.S. businesses or violating trade agreements, with no upper limit on tariff rates [26][27]. - Section 122: Allows tariffs to address fundamental international payment issues, with a cap of 15% and a maximum duration of 150 days [29][31]. - Section 338: Grants authority to impose tariffs if a country imposes unreasonable fees or restrictions, with a limit of 50% [33][36]. Group 2: Current Applications and Historical Context - Section 232 has been previously used by Trump to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum, and he may focus on these industries again [21]. - Section 201 was used in 2018 for solar panels and washing machines, with some tariffs still in effect [25]. - Section 301 was utilized to impose tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese imports during Trump's first term, and the Biden administration has continued to adjust these tariffs [28]. - Section 122 has never been activated, but legal challenges suggest it may be more appropriate for addressing trade deficits than IEEPA [32]. - Section 338 has never been used for tariffs, and invoking it could lead to legal challenges [37].