据新华社报道，在美国最高法院驳回白宫利用《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）实施关税的企图后， 特朗普政府迅速启动"B计划"，援引《1974年贸易法》第122条款对全球进口商品实施最高15%的关税。 然而，这一旨在应对"国际收支危机"的紧急工具正面临来自经济学家和法律界对其合法性的广泛质疑， 核心争议在于美国当前的经济基本面并不符合该条款法定的适用门槛。 尽管如此，实际操作层面的时间差可能有利于特朗普政府。分析指出，法院很难在法规允许的150天期 限内对第122条款关税的合法性做出最终裁决。这为特朗普政府争取了更多时间，使其能够利用第232条 和第301条等更成熟的法律授权，在国家安全和不公平贸易行为等理由下，寻求制定更具体的关税措 施。 赤字数据背后的经济逻辑悖论 据华尔街见闻文章，为了证明关税的必要性，特朗普在总统公告中特别提及了美国高达负26万亿美元 的"净国际投资头寸"（NIIP），即美国对外资产与外国对美资产的差额，以此佐证国际收支关系正在恶 化。 然而，经济学家对这一归因并不买账。相关分析指出，NIIP为负的一个重要原因是外国持有的美国资产 价值显著高于美国持有的海外资产，而美国股市的上涨——这一 ...

特朗普遭遇他第二个任期中最重大的法庭败局，其核心政策工具被美国最高法院判定为违法。根据央视 新闻的报道，当地时间20日，美国最高法院裁定，《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）并未赋予总统在 未经国会批准的情况下征收关税的权力。经济学家估算，与此相关的关税已超过1750亿美元，如果这笔 款项全部退还或税率减半，将对美国经济产生巨大影响。值得注意的是，特朗普政府对钢铁、铝和汽车 所征收的关税并非依据IEEPA，因此不会直接受到影响。 特朗普对于这一裁决的回应似乎暗示，他并不 打算退还非法征收的关税。当被记者问及是否会退还此前大约1750亿美元的关税收入时，特朗普表示最 高法院的裁定存在缺陷，并未明确提及退还或不退还的问题。他预言，这一问题可能会持续争论，预计 接下来的两年，甚至五年，都会打官司。同时，特朗普政府的顾问贝森特在达拉斯经济俱乐部的演讲中 也表示，没人应指望关税收入会减少。财政部的数据显示，若结合可能加强的232条款和301条款，这将 使得2026年的关税收入维持在一个基本不变的水平。裁决公布后，美元指数转跌，美债价格下跌，主要 美股指涨幅扩大，而黄金和白银则大幅上涨。虽然市场有所反应，但总体而言，市场 ...

美国最高法院20日公布裁决，认定特朗普政府援引《国际紧急经济权力法》实施的大规模关税政策违法。 | (两家小型企业) | | | --- | --- | | V.O.S. Selections 案 | 美国联邦政府 | | (五家小型企业和十二个 | | | 州) | | | 以及追加企业等 | | | 2025年 | 审:美国国际贸易法院裁定原告胜 | | 说 5月28日 | | | 2025年 | 二审:美国联邦巡回上诉法院裁定原 | | 8月29日 告胜诉 | | | 2025年 | 被告(美国联邦政府) 上诉 | 2025年 美国最高法院举行口头辩论听证会 11月5日 2026年 2月20日 当国会同时涉及监管权和征税权 I 时,它是分别明确阐述的。它没 有这样做,这有力地证明了《国 ■ 际紧急经济权力法》(IEEPA) 中 的"监管"一词并不包括征税。 相反的解读将使IEEPA部分违 I I 宪。 美国最高法院大法官6-3裁 决认定特朗普大规模关税 违法。 9月3日 录和报道,那场诉讼涉及约4000起案件, 涉及已缴纳税款7.5亿美元。 媒体 美国最高法院判决情况 | | | | 首席大法 | 约翰 ...

当天，美国最高法院公布裁决，认定特朗普政府援引《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）实施的大规模 关税政策违法。随后，特朗普在记者会上作出上述表述。 他并在记者会上点明了其他征收关税的潜在途径，即《1962年贸易扩展法》第232条、《1974年贸易 法》第201条、301条以及《1930年关税法》第338条。 美国贸易代表格里尔在当天也表示，（基于）第122条的关税将于今日实施并签署。同时，301条款调查 在法律上具有极强持久性。 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，特朗普 政府在关税问题上"骑虎难下"，只能继续亮牌。 杜明对记者强调，所谓可以立即使用的"122条"，允许美国政府在150天内对贸易伙伴征收高达15%的关 税，而在这150天内，要警惕特朗普政府就行业领域开启更多调查，譬如"301调查"等，而且更要警惕对 于122条的"反复使用"，而且据他查阅法条，目前并没有明确针对"反复使用"该法条的禁止条款。 为何宣布额外征收10%全球关税 简单而言，当美国在国际贸易中面临严重的支付赤字，或当美元在外汇市场上面临巨大的、可能失控的 贬值压力时，根据法律规定，美国总 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court has delayed its ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case, causing uncertainty in the market, particularly affecting consumer stocks. Analysts suggest that the longer the delay, the more favorable it may be for the Trump administration, although some legal experts disagree on this perspective [1][2]. Group 1: Court Proceedings and Market Reactions - The Supreme Court has not yet announced a decision on the tariff case, with potential rulings expected around January 21 or 22 [1]. - The delay in the ruling has led to declines in consumer stocks, reflecting market concerns over policy uncertainty [1]. - Analysts from JPMorgan indicate that the longer the court takes to decide, the higher the likelihood that the ruling will favor the Trump administration [2]. Group 2: Financial Implications of Tariffs - The potential amount for tariff refunds in the case is estimated at $135 billion [3]. - Trump has warned that a ruling against his tariffs could lead to refunds amounting to "hundreds of billions" or even "trillions" of dollars, which he claims would be disastrous for the country [4]. - The actual tariff revenue collected has increased by $206 billion over the past eight months, but only about $130 billion is attributed to tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [5]. Group 3: Economic Perspectives - The current pace of tariff revenue generation is approximately $30.4 billion per month, translating to an annualized revenue of $364.5 billion, although this figure is expected to decline as companies seek ways to avoid tariffs [5]. - The Trump administration has indicated that tariffs are a means to address the national debt, but experts argue that the revenue generated is insufficient to have a significant economic impact [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision on tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, highlighting the administration's contingency plans if the court rules against them [3][4]. Group 1: Supreme Court Decision - The U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case on January 9, with the next hearing scheduled for January 14 [3]. - The court is expected to announce its decision on the case by February 3, 2026, with indications that the Trump administration may lose [7][11]. Group 2: Contingency Plans - Trump administration officials have indicated they are prepared with a "Plan B" if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, suggesting the use of alternative legal frameworks [4][10]. - The administration has identified several legal tools, including the 1974 Trade Act Section 122, the "232 investigation," and the "301 investigation," to potentially impose tariffs without relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [13][14]. Group 3: Financial Implications - If the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the Trump administration could face a refund obligation ranging from $133.5 billion to $150 billion [10][11]. - The administration's statements suggest that even if they lose the case, they will find ways to continue imposing tariffs through different legal mechanisms [11][12]. Group 4: Legal Frameworks - The article outlines various legal frameworks available to the Trump administration for imposing tariffs, including: - IEEPA: Immediate effect under national emergency [14] - Section 301: Takes 9-12 months to implement [14] - Section 232: Related to national security, takes about 9 months [14] - Section 122: Allows for quick imposition of tariffs within 150 days [14] - Section 338: Can impose tariffs up to 50% for discriminatory practices [14][16].

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]

Group 1 - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to announce several rulings on January 9, with the most notable being the legality of President Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" [1] - This ruling could have significant implications for U.S. trade policy, presidential power boundaries, and market expectations [1] - The Supreme Court has expedited the handling of related cases, leading to a strong belief in the legal community that the tariff case will likely be included in the announcements [1] Group 2 - Trump's tariff measures announced in April caused the S&P 500 index to drop nearly 5%, and U.S. Treasury yields fell significantly as investors sought safe-haven assets [2] - Analysts indicate that uncertainty in the market is rising, and if the court rules against Trump's use of emergency powers for tariffs, it could lead to a decrease in government tariff revenue and impact investor confidence in U.S. trade policy stability [2] - There is a prediction that if tariffs are ruled to be refunded, importers could see an influx of approximately $150 billion to $200 billion, which may support certain industries and improve corporate profitability [2]

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]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to make a ruling on tariffs on January 9, which could significantly impact the Trump administration's economic policies and potentially require the return of over $133.5 billion in tariffs if deemed illegal [3][12]. Group 1: Tariff Policy and Legal Context - The Trump administration implemented a series of tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) without Congressional approval [5]. - Previous rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. International Trade Court deemed these tariffs illegal, prompting the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court [6]. - The tariffs in question include "reciprocal tariffs" and those related to fentanyl [7]. Group 2: Potential Financial Implications - If the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, it may face the obligation to refund over $133.5 billion in tariffs collected since February 2025 [12]. - The U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that the net revenue from tariffs reached a record $195 billion for the fiscal year 2025, with monthly revenues around $30 billion [12]. Group 3: Future Actions and Legal Challenges - In anticipation of a potential unfavorable ruling, the Trump administration is considering using other legal provisions, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, to impose new tariffs [8][9]. - Numerous companies, including Costco and Revlon, have initiated lawsuits to reclaim tariffs paid, with around 40 legal briefs submitted to the Supreme Court opposing the tariff policies [14].