硬扛了3天后，美国终于认命，这场全球大战，结局真被中国说准了

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against the president's unilateral imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has led to a significant shift in trade policy, moving from emergency tariffs to temporary measures with limitations [3][5][25]. Group 1: Legal and Policy Changes - The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the president cannot impose tariffs without Congressional approval, emphasizing that tax authority belongs to Congress [3][5]. - The previous approach of using emergency powers to impose tariffs has been halted, leading to confusion within the White House and the Customs system [7][19]. - The administration has shifted to using the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary trade measures but imposes strict limitations on duration and rates [9][19]. Group 2: Impact on Tariff Rates - The new tariffs introduced under the Trade Act are capped at 15%, significantly lower than previous rates that could exceed 30% for certain countries [11][13]. - The average tariff rate on imports from China has decreased from approximately 32% to a lower range due to the new legal framework [13][15]. - The uniform 15% tariff has resulted in some countries, previously enjoying lower rates, facing increased tariffs, thus altering competitive dynamics [15][19]. Group 3: Market and Political Implications - The temporary nature of the new tariffs, limited to 150 days without Congressional support for extension, creates uncertainty in trade negotiations [19][21]. - The shift from a permanent to a temporary tariff framework reduces the leverage of the U.S. in trade discussions, as negotiating partners can now factor in the limited duration of tariffs [21][28]. - The ruling highlights the boundaries of executive power, indicating that unilateral trade measures without legislative backing may face legal challenges [25][28].