美国最高法院听证会：特朗普大范围关税合法性面临质疑

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing Supreme Court hearing regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which could generate significant revenue for the U.S. over the next decade. The case raises questions about the balance of power between the President and Congress in terms of taxation and trade regulation [3][6][11]. Tariff Authorization - The hearing lasted nearly two and a half hours, with representatives from the government and opposing parties presenting their arguments. The Trump administration is the first to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs [5][6]. - The government argues that tariffs are necessary to address trade deficits and negotiate trade agreements, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs [6][10]. Major Questions Doctrine - The Supreme Court has previously used the "major questions doctrine" to overturn significant policies from the Biden administration, requiring explicit legislative authorization for actions with substantial economic and political implications [8][9]. - The lower court ruled against Trump, stating that the imposition of tariffs lacked legal legitimacy under this doctrine [9]. Potential Outcomes - The Supreme Court's decision is expected to be closely divided, with conservative justices showing some support for Trump's position, while liberal justices express skepticism about the legality of the tariffs [11][12]. - If the Court rules against the tariffs, it could lead to complications, such as the need to refund tariffs already paid by U.S. importers, which have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue since February [11][12]. Market Reactions - Following the hearing, the probability of the Supreme Court supporting Trump's tariffs decreased significantly on prediction markets, indicating a growing belief that the justices may overturn the tariff policy [12]. Government's Position - Even if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the U.S. government may continue to impose tariffs using other legal frameworks, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent [13].