本文字数：2002，阅读时长大约4分钟 作者 | 第一财经 冯迪凡 据央视报道，当地时间9日，美国最高法院表示，当天不会就特朗普政府关税案作出裁决。 2026.01. 10 第一财经记者查阅美国最高法院网站， 其下一个计划的开庭时间是1月14日，期间美国最高法院会公布 已审理案件的裁决。 与此同时，特朗普政府高级官员在密集吹风，重申其准备了B计划的观点。 一位在美国从事贸易工作的资深业内人士对记者表示，目前白宫方面的思路是，如果不能使用《国际紧 急经济权力法》（IEEPA），也会有类似的其他紧急法，美国的法律工具箱中以往落满灰尘但仍可使用 的法条还是很多的，譬如可以迅速实施的1974年《贸易法》第122条。 英国杜伦大学法学院副院长、跨国法教授兼全球政策研究所联合主任杜明对第一财经记者表示 ， 第 122条等可以临时用一下，其他还可以使用的包括"232调查"，"301调查"和1930年《关税法》第338 如果输了要退税上千亿美元 特朗普政府2025年上台后援引IEEPA，以不经过国会批准、直接颁布行政令的方式出台一系列加征关 税措施，所开征的关税包括所谓"对等关税"和芬太尼关税等。 美国最高法院于2025年1 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case on January 9, focusing on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and potential refunds to importers if deemed illegal [1] Group 1: Legal and Policy Implications - The Supreme Court's review centers on whether the Trump administration had the authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA and if the government must refund tariffs paid by importers if the tariffs are found illegal [1] - U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bansen emphasized the importance of maintaining tariff revenue levels, noting that an unfavorable ruling would limit the President's flexibility in using tariffs as negotiation tools, which could be detrimental to the American public [1] Group 2: Economic Impact - The actual effects of the tariff policy have diverged from initial analyst predictions, with limited impact on U.S. inflation but a significant reduction in trade deficits, which fell to the lowest level since the 2009 financial crisis by October 2025 [2] - The upcoming tariff ruling is expected to gradually reveal its effects on U.S. trade dynamics, fiscal health, and global economic interactions, warranting ongoing monitoring of policy adjustments and market responses [2]

特朗普在去年4月宣布关税措施时，标普500指数曾一度下跌接近5%，美国国债收益率也出现大幅 下滑，投资者转向避险资产，以应对政策不确定性。后续随着时间推移，市场才逐渐修复。 路透社援引分析人士观点指出，市场的不确定性正在上升。如果法院否定特朗普使用紧急权力征收 关税的做法，相关关税可能被取消，政府关税收入将下降，同时投资者对于美国贸易政策稳定性的判断 将受到影响，债券市场和股票市场也将受到冲击。 "我们从未见过一项具有如此大经济影响力的裁决。"Key Advisors Wealth Management首席执行官埃 迪·加布尔（Eddie Ghabour）表示，"如果最高法院作出不利于总统的裁决，并要求政府退还所有关税， 这将对市场构成重大阻力，相当于从系统中吸走流动性。" 不过，也有部分投资者指出，如果最高法院裁定需要退还关税，预计进口商未来数月可能收到约 1500亿至2000亿美元的资金流入。这种退款使企业获得资金回流，从而对部分行业形成支撑，将有利于 提升企业的盈利状况。 目前，市场预测数据显示，投资者认为法院维持关税合法性的概率约为30%，反映出市场对裁决结 果仍存在较大分歧。 美国联邦最高法院将在当 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling on the legality of tariffs implemented during Trump's administration, which could have significant implications for trade policy and the U.S. fiscal situation [1] Group 1: Legal and Policy Implications - The ruling will address whether the government has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and whether the government must refund tariffs paid by importers if the tariffs are deemed illegal [1] - The court may issue a mixed ruling, granting limited authority under IEEPA while requiring limited refunds, or it may explore various other options [1] - Even if the White House loses the case, it retains other policy tools to implement tariffs without invoking emergency powers [1] Group 2: Economic Impact - Losing the tariff tool could have multiple repercussions, including negative effects on the ambition for industrial relocation to the U.S. and potential increases in interest rates, although it may benefit corporate profits by lowering input costs and facilitating trade [2] - The government has identified several alternative strategies to maintain most tariffs if the court ruling is unfavorable, with a 28% probability that the court will support the current tariff implementation [2] - Tariffs are projected to generate approximately $195 billion in revenue for the fiscal year 2025, with an additional $62 billion expected in 2026 [2] Group 3: Analyst Perspectives - Analysts from Morgan Stanley believe there is significant leeway in the Supreme Court's ruling, which could result in a narrowing of existing tariffs without a complete repeal or limitations on future tariff applications [3] - The focus on affordability issues may allow the government to adopt a more moderate approach to the overall tariff system [3] Group 4: Trade Deficit and Inflation - The impact of tariffs has exceeded analysts' expectations, showing limited effects on inflation while significantly reducing the trade deficit, countering views that tariffs could isolate the U.S. in global trade [4] - The U.S. trade deficit reached its lowest level since the end of the 2009 financial crisis in October last year, indicating a substantial decrease in imports [4]

2026.01. 07 本文字数：1994，阅读时长大约3分钟 作者 | 第一财经 冯迪凡 据央视报道，当地时间1月6日，美国最高法院宣布，将在本周五（9日）就关税问题作出裁决。 具体而言，当前，美国最高法院已将周五定为裁决日，据悉法官们将于当地时间9日上午10点开庭时宣布可能作出 的裁决。 如果届时美国最高法院就关税问题作出不利于特朗普政府的裁决，被认为将削弱特朗普政府标志性的经济政策，并 成为美国总统特朗普重返白宫以来遭遇的最大法律挫败。 根据美国海关和边境保护局的数据，如果美国最高法院裁定特朗普政府根据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）征 收的关税非法，特朗普政府可能面临向进口商退还超过1335亿美元关税的风险。 本周宣判 特朗普政府2025年1月上台后援引IEEPA，以不经过国会批准、直接颁布行政令的方式出台一系列加征关税措施。 在美国联邦巡回上诉法院和美国国际贸易法院分别裁定现政府一揽子关税政策违法后，特朗普政府向最高法院提出 上诉，目前案件正在最高法院审理。 目前，特朗普政府援引IEEPA所开征的关税包括所谓"对等关税"和芬太尼关税等。 "我们有一个重要的最高法院案件。"特朗普在6日告诉众议院共 ...

炒股就看金麒麟分析师研报，权威，专业，及时，全面，助您挖掘潜力主题机会！ 来源：金十数据 最高法院可能很快就会裁决特朗普的关税是否合法，这一决定将对总统权力的范围产生深远影响。 对于希望获得退款的美国进口商以及钱包日益缩水的消费者来说，此案利害攸关。然而，其对市场的影 响预计较为有限。无论结果如何，这一决定很可能不会改变白宫将关税作为一种政策工具的做法。 早在今年4月，特朗普称美国贸易逆差是对国家安全和经济的威胁，并援引《国际紧急经济权力法》 （IEEPA）对几乎所有美国贸易伙伴征收关税。这些所谓的"对等关税"——目前的税率在10%到40%之 间——正是最高法院此案的核心。 今年早些时候，下级法院在两起独立案件中裁定IEEPA关税非法；原告（均为小企业团体）对特朗普根 据该法案征收关税的权力提出了质疑。政府随即向最高法院提起上诉，最高法院将这两起案件合并审 理。 由于此案涉及国会与行政部门之间的权力分立以及何种情况构成紧急权力，裁决将产生超越贸易领域的 广泛影响。如果白宫被迫寻求其他途径来维持其关税制度，该裁决还可能给局势注入一种新型的政策波 动性。 律师们认为本周做出裁决的可能性很小，大多数人预计裁决将在2 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Trump's tariff policies, particularly the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the government's readiness with alternative legal tools to maintain tariffs even if the court rules against them [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Challenges and Tariff Implications - The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, with indications that many justices are skeptical about its use for tariff imposition [2]. - If the Supreme Court rules against the government, it could lead to significant questions regarding which tariffs would be eliminated and the process for refunding paid tariffs [2]. - A ruling against IEEPA could see the U.S. weighted average tariff rate (WATR) drop from 13.6% to 7.2%, but this low rate is expected to be temporary [2][3]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Tools - UBS reports that the government has prepared a "B Plan" to utilize other legal authorizations to maintain tariffs, indicating that a complete removal of tariffs is unlikely [3]. - The government can invoke the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122, allowing for a temporary 15% import surcharge for up to 150 days, which could serve as a short-term solution [4][6]. - Long-term strategies include using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to combat unfair trade practices, which could restore WATR to 11.8% or higher depending on the scope of investigations [7]. Group 3: Specific Tariff Provisions - Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows for tariffs based on national security concerns, which are not affected by IEEPA rulings [8]. - Ongoing Section 232 investigations could cover imports valued at up to $466 billion, potentially filling any tariff gaps created by IEEPA challenges [8]. - Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits tariffs of up to 50% against countries discriminating against U.S. industries, though its implementation is more challenging [8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses President Trump's potential response to a Supreme Court ruling against his tariff policies, indicating that a "second plan" may be necessary if the court rules against him, which he believes would have devastating consequences for the U.S. economy [2][4]. Group 1: Legal Context and Implications - The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of Trump's core tariff mechanism, "reciprocal tariffs," with several justices expressing skepticism about the legal basis for these tariffs [4]. - The current tariffs are based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs, leading to claims of overreach by the Trump administration [5]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Frameworks - Alternatives to IEEPA include the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows for a maximum 50% tariff increase, and the Trade Act of 1974, which permits a maximum 15% tariff on imports within 150 days to address balance of payments deficits [6]. - Specific tariffs on steel and aluminum are based on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which has already seen over 700 "derivative products" added to the tariff list since spring [6]. Group 3: Implementation and Timing Concerns - Trump noted that while alternative legal frameworks could be explored, they would likely take more time compared to the current IEEPA-based approach, which allows for rapid implementation of tariffs through presidential executive orders [7]. - He emphasized the need for quick decision-making, stating that the current method is the best defense measure available [7]. Group 4: Financial Consequences of a Supreme Court Loss - If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the U.S. Treasury will need to address potential refund procedures for taxpayers, with estimates suggesting that the tax revenue at stake could reach between $750 billion and $1 trillion, half of which may require actual refunds [8]. - The U.S. Trade Representative indicated that not only the plaintiffs but also other taxpayers might seek refunds, with the specific procedures to be determined through discussions between the Treasury and the courts [8].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning President Trump's use of broad powers to impose tariffs, indicating potential judicial intervention, which will create uncertainty for affected businesses and countries for months to come [2][3] - Regardless of the court's ruling on the constitutionality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump may still utilize other legal avenues to impose tariffs, although these may not provide the immediate effect he prefers [2][3] Geopolitical Impact - The uncertainty surrounding the tariffs is affecting geopolitical negotiations with major trading partners like the EU, and businesses are preparing for the implications of ongoing tariffs [3][4] - A negative ruling against Trump's tariffs could weaken his international economic agenda and impact negotiations with countries like the EU, Brazil, and India, as well as trade talks with South Korea and Vietnam [4] Economic Consequences - Bloomberg Economics estimates that if the Supreme Court issues a broadly unfavorable ruling, the average effective tariff rate in the U.S. could drop to 6.5%, significantly reducing the economic impact of the trade war, with a projected GDP loss of 0.6% compared to a 1.7% loss if current tariffs remain [5] - The importance of tariff revenue for balancing the federal budget is highlighted, with recent fiscal year deficits decreasing to $1.78 trillion, down 2% from the projected $1.82 trillion for 2024, although this only slightly improves the government's debt trajectory [5][6] Business Realities - Businesses are facing significant unpredictability due to Trump's tariffs, particularly those implemented under IEEPA, which have created instability in the import sector [6][7] - Small businesses are particularly vulnerable, with some owners expressing cautious optimism about potential court rulings but fearing that any relief may come too late to mitigate the damage caused by tariffs [7]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments regarding the legality of the Trump administration's "reciprocal tariffs" policy, with significant opposition from businesses, lawmakers, and former officials, who argue that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs is illegal [1][2]. Group 1: Legal and Political Context - Approximately 40 lawsuits have been filed challenging the Trump administration's tariff policy ahead of the Supreme Court hearing [1]. - The U.S. Senate passed a resolution to terminate the comprehensive tariff policy with a vote of 51-47, indicating a division within the Republican Party regarding tariff policies [1]. - Legal experts highlight that the case raises fundamental constitutional questions about the division of powers between Congress and the President regarding tariff imposition [2][3]. Group 2: Economic Implications - The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that the tariff policy has caused significant economic damage to businesses, leading to delayed capital investments and affecting consumer spending [2]. - The potential ruling could impact over $50 billion in additional tariffs expected to be collected by the government in 2025, which had previously alleviated concerns about U.S. debt levels [3][4]. Group 3: Future Legal Strategies - Even if the Supreme Court limits the use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs, the Trump administration may resort to other legal avenues, such as Section 301 and Section 232 investigations, to impose tariffs [4][5]. - Legal experts express concern that if the Supreme Court restricts the use of IEEPA, the administration might increase the frequency of targeted investigations, potentially leading to broader economic impacts [4][5].