关税政策被最高院推翻后不退场，特朗普火速推出10%替代方案

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Trump's global tariff policy, deeming it illegal and undermining a significant tool for reshaping trade agreements and imposing tariffs on foreign imports [1][2]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Implications - The ruling was made with a 6-3 vote, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, stating that Trump overstepped his authority by implementing tariffs without explicit Congressional authorization [2]. - The tariffs in question represent a substantial portion of the total tariffs imposed by Trump, with an estimated revenue of $1.5 trillion over the next decade, accounting for 70% of the total tariffs from his second term [1]. - The court did not address whether the government must refund the tariffs already collected, leading to potential legal battles from businesses seeking to reclaim these funds [5]. Group 2: Legal and Political Context - This ruling marks the first time the Supreme Court has overturned a policy from Trump's second term, despite a conservative majority that has generally supported his use of executive power [2]. - The court rejected Trump's argument that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act implicitly authorized such tariffs, emphasizing that no previous president had used this law to impose tariffs on such a scale [2][4]. - The ruling highlighted the need for clear legislative language if Congress intends to grant new powers to the executive branch regarding significant economic issues [6]. Group 3: Reactions and Future Actions - Trump expressed strong disapproval of the ruling, labeling it "bad and absurd," and indicated plans to impose a new 10% global tariff using other legal avenues [1][3]. - The White House announced a temporary import tax of 10% on goods entering the U.S., effective in 150 days, with certain exemptions for critical minerals and energy products [1]. - Legal experts suggest that while the government can attempt to implement tariffs under different laws, these alternatives may not provide the same flexibility as the previously overturned measures [4].