值得一提的是，白宫近日调整了"对等关税"的适用范围，将咖啡、香蕉、牛肉、茶叶、香料、番茄、牛 油果、椰子、橙子、菠萝等农业产品排除特朗普"对等关税"令的附加关税名单之外。更新后的关税豁免 表及对"结盟伙伴"的潜在调整清单自11月13日0时起生效。 近几周，特朗普还提出了向许多美国人发放2000美元支票形式的关税"红利"的可能性。特朗普表示，他 正在考虑发放这笔退税支票，"可能在明年年中，或者稍晚一些"，但美国财长贝森特等官员后来补充 称，这需要国会批准。 "我们正在等待裁决。我们希望结果是好的，但如果不是，我们会——我们会想尽办法，你知道，我们 会想尽办法的。"特朗普上周三曾这样表态。 白宫拒绝就其准备工作的具体细节发表评论，但承认，的确正在寻求"新的方法"来维持特朗普的贸易政 策。此前，在本月的口头辩论中，美国最高法院对特朗普的全球关税政策表示了质疑。 目前在公开场合，美国总统特朗普仍一直抱有希望，认为自己能够在"对等关税"问题上实现完全胜诉。 特朗普已经多次敦促美国大法官们支持他的关税政策，并称这些关税是"基于美国国情"、以经济紧急状 况为由而实施的。 特朗普政府今年2月依据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEE ...

面对其国内通胀高企的压力，以及最高法院关税听证会后的诉讼不确定性，白宫正逐步改变关税工具策略。 据证券时报网11月23日报道，知情的美国官员透露，特朗普政府正在秘密准备一套备用方案，一旦"对等关税"被推翻， 商务部和贸易代表办公室将转而依据《贸易法》中的第301条和第122条。 这两条法律同样赋予总统单方面加征关税的权力。白宫国家经济委员会主任哈塞特近期也透露过类似信号。不过，这些 备用方案要么实施起来更慢，要么征收范围不如特朗普现在用的权力那么广，而且也可能面临类似诉讼。 具体来看，1974年出台的《贸易法》第301条授权贸易代表可对他国的"不合理或不公正贸易做法"发起调查，并建议总 统实施单边制裁。 据克罗威尔莫林律师事务所(Crowell & Moring)合伙人Dan Cannistra统计，截至2025年1月17日特朗普第二个任期开始之 前，历届政府根据301条款发起调查超过130起，其中有35起调查是在1995年世界贸易组织成立后启动的。 2017年，特朗普在第一个任期内特别针对亚洲的贸易伙伴扩大了301条款的适用范围，包括数字贸易、知识产权、市场 准入（如乙醇）、环境政策（如非法毁林）等广泛领域 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, raising concerns about the potential financial implications for the government and the future of U.S.-China trade relations [1][6]. Group 1: Legal and Political Implications - The Supreme Court's questioning indicates skepticism about the administration's authority to impose tariffs, emphasizing that such powers belong to Congress as per the U.S. Constitution [3][6]. - Chief Justice Roberts highlighted that tariffs are essentially taxes on Americans, which should be legislated by Congress, not unilaterally imposed by the executive branch [3][6]. - The legal challenge reflects a broader issue of executive overreach and the balance of power within the U.S. political system, with previous lower court rulings deeming the tariff policy illegal [6][8]. Group 2: Economic Consequences - Trump's claim that the government may owe over $20 trillion in refunds if tariffs are deemed illegal is exaggerated; actual potential refunds range from $50 billion to $200 billion, with collected tariffs amounting to only $174 billion as of September [4][6]. - The administration's reliance on tariffs to secure foreign investment agreements, totaling over $1.7 trillion, may collapse if the tariffs are ruled illegal, posing a significant risk to these economic commitments [4][6]. - The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has criticized the administration's claims about tariff revenues, suggesting that the actual income is likely only half or a third of what is being promoted [4][6]. Group 3: Strategic Responses - In contrast to the U.S. political turmoil, China has demonstrated strategic stability by signaling a willingness to ease tensions through dialogue and mutual concessions on tariffs [6][8]. - The ongoing legal battle over tariffs underscores the lack of domestic consensus on Trump's trade policies, with significant pushback from businesses and public dissatisfaction with economic conditions [6][8]. - The potential invalidation of the tariff policy could dismantle the narrative that tariffs are beneficial for the economy, leading to broader implications for the U.S. fiscal situation and capital markets [6][8].

Legal Analysis - The U.S. Supreme Court's debate on the legality of "reciprocal tariffs" shows a 3:6 ratio in favor of declaring them illegal, indicating a high probability of a ruling against them[2] - The main arguments for declaring the tariffs illegal include the assertion that tariff authority belongs to Congress and that the IEEPA was intended to limit presidential power, not expand it[2][11] - Three potential outcomes of the ruling are identified: a likely illegal ruling with delayed effect (45%-55% probability), partial illegality with possible allowance for fentanyl tariffs (20%-30% probability), and a low probability (10%-20%) of upholding the legality of reciprocal tariffs[17][18] Economic Implications - If reciprocal tariffs are deemed illegal, the U.S. tariff structure may decline by approximately 25%, with total tariff revenue potentially dropping from $1,959 billion to $1,554 billion[4][26][37] - Current tariff revenue composition shows reciprocal tariffs account for 45%, Section 301 tariffs for 18%, and Section 232 tariffs for 17%[4][26] - The effective tariff rate for the U.S. is currently 9.75%, with the highest rate on Chinese imports at 40.4%[4][32] Political Response - In response to a potential ruling against reciprocal tariffs, Trump may resort to existing tariff laws such as Sections 232, 301, and 338, but the likelihood of broad tax refunds is low due to legal constraints[3][22] - The probability of universal tax refunds is low, with refunds likely limited to specific plaintiffs rather than a blanket return to all importers[3][25] - Trump's proposal to distribute tariff revenues to citizens faces significant legislative hurdles, requiring Congressional approval[3][25]

Core Viewpoint - The Trump tariffs, initially aimed at protecting American manufacturing, have evolved into a significant fiscal revenue mechanism, raising concerns about their legality and implications for U.S. economic policy [1][4]. Group 1: Tariff Revenue and Economic Impact - The Trump administration has expanded tariffs not only on China but also on Europe, Mexico, and Vietnam, framing them as measures for national security and fair competition, while effectively acting as an "invisible tax" on American consumers [3][5]. - If the current tariff structure remains in place until mid-next year, the U.S. government could generate between $750 billion to $1 trillion in revenue, marking the largest tax increase in nearly two decades [3][5]. - The American Employers Federation estimates that U.S. businesses will incur over $82 billion in additional costs due to tariffs in 2024, leading many small manufacturers to raise prices or reduce production [5]. Group 2: Legal and Constitutional Challenges - The legality of the tariffs is under scrutiny, as the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, and the Trump administration's use of "emergency economic powers" to impose tariffs may violate this principle [5][7]. - Supreme Court justices have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the tariffs, suggesting that significant economic decisions should require explicit congressional authorization [5][7]. - If the courts determine that the tariffs are effectively taxes, it could trigger constitutional disputes and potentially require the government to refund up to $19.5 billion in collected revenue [5]. Group 3: Political and Diplomatic Implications - The perception of tariffs as a covert tax undermines the credibility of U.S. trade policy in international negotiations, as trade measures are increasingly viewed as revenue-generating tools rather than diplomatic instruments [6][7]. - The Trump administration faces a dilemma: maintaining that tariffs serve as trade tools necessitates proving their direct link to national security, while acknowledging their fiscal role risks being deemed unconstitutional [7]. - The situation illustrates a broader internal conflict regarding power, money, and constitutional limits, as tariffs transition from trade levers to fiscal instruments, complicating the administration's economic agenda [7].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is examining the legality of global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), raising questions about the boundaries of presidential economic authority [1][2] Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court hearing lasted two and a half hours, focusing on whether Trump overstepped the constitutional taxing authority granted to Congress [1] - Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that tariffs are essentially a tax on Americans, which is a core power of Congress, suggesting that significant economic actions by the president require explicit congressional authorization [1] - Some conservative justices argued that the president has inherent discretion in foreign affairs and national security matters, referencing a precedent from the Nixon era [1] Group 2: Government's Defense - The Trump administration defended the tariffs as a necessary measure to address a long-standing trade deficit, which they claim poses a national security threat [1] - Government lawyers warned that removing the tariffs could lead to aggressive trade retaliation from other nations, undermining U.S. economic and security standing [1] Group 3: Financial Implications - U.S. Customs data indicates that since February, the IEEPA tariffs have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue for the U.S. [2] - The outcome of the case could reshape the boundaries of presidential economic power and impact the global trade landscape [2]

Core Viewpoint - Goldman Sachs indicates that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding tariff rulings remains closely contested, with a ruling expected in December 2025 or January 2026. The firm believes that even an unfavorable ruling may not fundamentally alter the tariff landscape [1][2]. Group 1: Court Proceedings and Predictions - Goldman Sachs' chief economist Jan Hatzius' team reported that during the oral arguments on November 5, 2025, most justices expressed skepticism about the president's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), leading to a market probability adjustment for maintaining tariffs from 40% to around 30% [2][3]. - The firm predicts that even if the court rejects IEEPA tariffs, the Trump administration could still implement similar tariffs through other legal avenues, resulting in an actual tariff rate decrease of only about 1 percentage point [2][5]. Group 2: Current Tariff Impact and Future Scenarios - As of September, the government had collected approximately $89 billion in IEEPA tariffs, which is expected to rise to between $115 billion and $145 billion by the time of the court's ruling. The refund process for these tariffs could take several months, indicating that the economic impact of these tariffs will persist [5][6]. - Goldman Sachs notes that a court ruling does not equate to the end of tariffs, as the government has various alternative legal tools at its disposal to impose tariffs, including provisions from the Trade Act of 1974 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 [7][8]. Group 3: Judicial Dynamics and Key Justices - The internal dynamics of the court reveal a split, with four justices likely opposing the government and three supporting it, while two justices remain undecided. This indicates a highly competitive ruling process [2][6]. - Key swing votes are held by Justices Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts, with Barrett questioning the intent of Congress in granting broad tariff powers through IEEPA, and Roberts emphasizing that taxation is a core power of Congress, while acknowledging the importance of tariffs as a tool of foreign policy [6][7].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is debating the legality of the President's broad tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which has significant implications for presidential authority, congressional tax powers, and the economic fate of thousands of businesses [1][4][15] - The case has garnered widespread media attention, with reports highlighting skepticism and concerns among justices regarding the interpretation of IEEPA as a basis for universal tariff authority [1][4][11] Group 1: Background of the Case - The legal battle began in April 2025 when Learning Resources, an educational toy company, filed a lawsuit against the President's tariff policy due to rising import costs and squeezed profit margins [4] - Similar lawsuits were filed by V.O.S. Selections, a wine and spirits importer, questioning the legality of the President's broad tariff imposition under IEEPA [4][5] - The case escalated from the U.S. International Trade Court to the Federal Circuit Court, which ruled that the President lacked the authority to impose such extensive tariffs under IEEPA, prompting the government to appeal to the Supreme Court [4][5] Group 2: Legal Representation and Arguments - The government is represented by Solicitor General D. John Roberts, a highly regarded figure in the Supreme Court, while the opposing side includes former Solicitor General Neal Katyal, representing small businesses [8][9] - A coalition of state governments has also joined the plaintiffs, emphasizing the need for clear congressional authorization for significant actions in the sensitive area of tariffs [8][9] Group 3: Court Proceedings and Dynamics - The oral arguments on November 5 were extended to 80 minutes due to intense questioning from justices, lasting approximately two and a half hours [10] - Justices focused on whether IEEPA grants the President the authority to impose such broad and long-term tariffs, with discussions around the "major questions doctrine" and the historical context of tariff powers [11][12] Group 4: Potential Outcomes and Implications - Predictions for the Supreme Court's ruling include three main possibilities: a significant limitation of presidential power, a technical compromise acknowledging limited emergency powers, or a ruling in favor of the government's position [15][16] - The outcome will have profound implications for U.S. trade policy, affecting business costs, import prices, and the constitutional balance of power between the presidency and Congress [15][16]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of President Trump's extensive tariff policy, which could have significant implications for the global economy and serve as a critical test of presidential power [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of Trump's comprehensive tariff policy, with oral arguments lasting over two and a half hours [2][3]. - Conservative and liberal justices raised pointed questions about whether Trump can defend his tariff policy using a 50-year-old law, suggesting it may represent an expansion of executive power [2][6]. - If the plaintiffs win, many of Trump's tariff measures could be overturned, requiring the government to refund companies that have paid tariffs and potentially nullifying recent trade agreements [3][12]. Group 2: Constitutional Authority - The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to impose taxes and tariffs, with Chief Justice John Roberts indicating that the court may invoke the "major questions doctrine," requiring explicit congressional authorization for significant economic actions [6][11]. - The Trump administration argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the president to impose tariffs in response to national emergencies, but challengers contend that "regulation" does not encompass the power to levy tariffs [10][12]. - The Supreme Court has historically granted the president considerable discretion in foreign affairs, but there are concerns that this could undermine the separation of powers [11][12]. Group 3: Economic Implications - The tariffs imposed under Trump's policy have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue from February 4 to September 23 [12]. - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, it could lead to significant economic disruptions, including the potential for a "Great Depression-like economic collapse" and serious diplomatic repercussions [12][14]. - The government is exploring alternative legal avenues to maintain its tariff policies if the court rules unfavorably, although these alternatives may be less flexible [14].

Core Viewpoint - Goldman Sachs indicates that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on tariff rulings remains closely contested, with a ruling expected in December 2025 or January 2026. The firm believes that even an unfavorable ruling may not fundamentally alter the tariff landscape [1]. Group 1: Court Proceedings and Predictions - The Supreme Court's oral arguments on November 5, 2025, revealed skepticism among most justices regarding the president's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), leading Goldman Sachs to lower the market's probability of maintaining tariffs from 40% to around 30% [1][2]. - Goldman Sachs predicts that if the court rejects the IEEPA tariffs, the Trump administration could still implement similar tariffs through other legal avenues, resulting in an actual tariff rate decrease of only about 1 percentage point [1]. Group 2: Financial Implications and Refund Processes - As of September, the government had collected approximately $89 billion in IEEPA tariffs, which is expected to rise to between $115 billion and $145 billion by the time of the court's ruling. The refund process for any potential tariff reversals could take several months [3]. - Even if the court rules against the IEEPA tariffs, the government has various alternative legal tools to impose tariffs, including provisions from the Trade Act of 1974 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which could allow for the reimplementation of similar tariffs, particularly against major trading partners [3]. Group 3: Judicial Dynamics - The oral arguments highlighted a division among justices, with three liberal justices explicitly questioning the government's position, while some conservative justices also leaned towards opposing the government based on congressional delegation of power [4]. - Key swing votes appear to be Justices Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts, with Barrett questioning whether Congress intended to grant broad tariff powers through the IEEPA, and Roberts emphasizing that taxation is a core power of Congress, although recognizing tariffs as tools of foreign policy [4].