如何看待美国法院裁定特朗普关税违法？——关税“压力测试”系列之十（申万宏观·赵伟团队）

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled on May 29 that President Trump's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was illegal, challenging the legitimacy of the U.S. trade war and potentially leading to significant changes in trade policy [2][24]. Summary by Sections Current Status of the U.S. International Trade Court Ruling - The court found that the President lacked the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs on all imported goods under IEEPA, infringing on Congress's constitutional trade legislative powers [2][25]. - A permanent injunction was issued against the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to cease the collection of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, effective within 10 days unless a stay is granted by a higher court [2][25]. Who Are the Plaintiffs? - The ruling was a result of a combined lawsuit from 12 Democratic state attorneys general and five importers represented by a nonprofit organization [3][26]. - The court's reasoning included that Trump's tariffs exceeded the authority granted by IEEPA and lacked a reasonable connection to the issues of fentanyl and immigration [3][26]. Which Tariffs May Become Invalid? - Tariffs related to fentanyl and those imposed on Mexico and Canada, as well as a global 10% baseline tariff, are likely to be affected [4][27]. - However, tariffs from Trump's earlier policies, such as the Section 301 tariffs on China, remain in effect, with potential reductions to around 12% [4][27]. Impact of the Ruling and Trump's Possible Responses - Trump has appealed the ruling and may seek a stay from the Federal Circuit Court, with the appeal process potentially lasting 6 to 18 months [5][28]. - The administration still has other tools available, such as Sections 301, 232, and 122, to impose tariffs, although these come with more constraints compared to IEEPA [5][28]. Historical Context and Market Reaction - Historically, major trade wars initiated by Republican presidents have ended in three ways: domestic opposition leading to electoral defeat, achieving specific trade goals, or WTO rulings against the U.S. [6][29]. - Following the court's decision, risk assets surged while safe-haven assets declined, with the S&P 500 rising by 1.2% and the 10-year Treasury yield increasing by 3.2 basis points [6][29].