Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of the federal government's large-scale tariff implementation, which is based on a 1977 law intended for use during national emergencies, raising concerns about the balance of power between the presidency and Congress [1][2][4]. Group 1: Legal and Political Implications - The case is seen as one of the most significant in U.S. history, as it challenges the authority of the president to impose tariffs without congressional approval [2]. - The Supreme Court is reviewing an appeal from the federal government against lawsuits from five small businesses and twelve states that argue the tariff policy is illegal [2][4]. - Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett expressed skepticism about the government's interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, questioning whether it grants the president the authority to impose tariffs [4][5]. Group 2: Economic Impact - The tariffs, which have generated an estimated $89 billion in revenue from February 4 to September 23, 2023, are criticized for their negative economic consequences, including harming consumers and productive businesses [8][9]. - A recent poll indicates that 72% of Americans view the economy negatively, with many attributing rising living costs to the government's tariff policies [9]. Group 3: Future Considerations - If the Supreme Court rules against the government, it may lead to the cancellation of trade agreements and potential refunds to importers, which could have severe economic repercussions [6]. - The government has alternative options to impose tariffs, such as using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, even if the current case does not go in its favor [8].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the legality of the Trump administration's comprehensive tariff policy, with concerns raised about potential abuse of executive power and the implications for trade negotiations and national security [1][5][7]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The case traces back to April when President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose "reciprocal tariffs," leading to appeals from a liquor importer and a toy company questioning the legality of such actions [1][3]. - The liquor importer case successfully progressed through the U.S. International Trade Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting the federal government to appeal to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case on September 9 [3]. Group 2: Constitutional and Legal Implications - According to the U.S. Constitution, the power to levy taxes belongs to Congress, while the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows the president to take economic measures in response to foreign threats, but does not explicitly grant the authority to impose tariffs [5]. - The legality of deriving the authority to impose tariffs from the regulation of imports is a central question, raising concerns about whether this would transfer congressional taxing power to the president [7]. Group 3: Potential Outcomes and Implications - There are three possible outcomes from the Supreme Court's decision: 1. Upholding the legality of the tariff policy, which could increase global trade uncertainty and disrupt the value chain established in the early 21st century [11]. 2. Rejecting the tariff policy, allowing importers to seek refunds and potentially creating new opportunities in international trade [11]. 3. Allowing tariffs in certain scenarios but creating an unpredictable environment for traders, which could negatively impact investment, exports, and global economic prosperity [11].

Core Points - The Trump administration is defending its tariff policy as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares for a crucial hearing regarding the president's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1][2] - Treasury Secretary Mnuchin announced he will personally attend the Supreme Court hearing to emphasize the importance of tariffs [1] - The Supreme Court will hear two cases that challenge the legality of the tariffs, which could have significant implications for Trump's economic agenda [2] Summary by Sections - **Legal Context** - The Supreme Court will consolidate the cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, focusing on whether the president has the authority to implement extensive tariff measures under the IEEPA and if this violates constitutional separation of powers [1][2] - **Implications of the Court's Decision** - A ruling against the government could potentially halve the current average effective tariff rate and require the government to refund billions of dollars in collected tariffs, which may destabilize existing trade agreements [2]

Core Points - President Trump plans to attend the Supreme Court oral arguments regarding tariffs, emphasizing the importance of tariffs for national defense and security [3] - The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on November 5 regarding Trump's request to overturn lower court rulings that found he lacked authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [3][8] - Trump's administration argues that the IEEPA grants the president the right to regulate imports in response to "any unusual and special threat" [3][5] Legal Arguments - Trump's chief lawyer, John Sauer, contends that the Supreme Court has previously rejected similar claims regarding the president's authority [4] - The plaintiffs argue that even if the IEEPA grants tariff authority, it does not allow for unlimited tariff imposition [5] - Sauer asserts that decisions regarding foreign affairs and emergencies should be made by the president and Congress, not the courts [6][7] Tariff Strategy - Despite the ongoing Supreme Court case, Trump continues to announce new tariffs, including a 100% tariff on imported brand-name drugs and a 50% tariff on cabinets and related products [7][8] - The administration's actions are described as a "dual-track tariff strategy," indicating a potential continuation of tariffs regardless of the court's decision [8] - Legal experts suggest that businesses should consider tariffs as a significant aspect of regulatory and enforcement frameworks in the foreseeable future [8]

Core Points - Trump may attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding tariffs, marking a historic moment as he would be the first sitting president to do so [1] - The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on November 5 concerning Trump's request to overturn lower court rulings that found he lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs [1][3] - The Trump administration argues that the IEEPA grants the president the authority to regulate imports in response to "any unusual and extraordinary threat" [3] Group 1 - The Supreme Court's upcoming hearing is considered one of the most significant cases in U.S. history, with potential long-term implications for national security and economic stability [1] - Lower courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs may not be legally justified under the IEEPA, with the appellate court affirming that tariff powers belong to Congress [1][3] - Trump's chief lawyer, John Sauer, contends that the courts lack the capacity to determine when diplomatic matters require urgent responses, suggesting that such decisions should rest with the president and Congress [4] Group 2 - Despite the ongoing legal challenges, Trump continues to announce new tariffs, including a 100% tariff on imported brand-name drugs and a 50% tariff on cabinets and related products [4] - The administration's actions regarding tariffs have been described as unusually swift, with the announcement of tariffs on copper occurring just 144 days after initiating an investigation, well within the typical timeframes [4][5] - Legal experts suggest that the Trump administration is shifting towards a dual-track tariff strategy, indicating that tariffs will remain a significant aspect of regulatory and enforcement actions in the foreseeable future [5]

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments on tariffs are critical for President Trump's trade policy, with potential implications for the U.S. economy and international trade agreements [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Context - The Supreme Court will hear arguments on November 5 regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which were enacted under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act [1][2]. - A previous ruling by the U.S. International Trade Court stated that Trump lacked the authority to impose these tariffs, a decision upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals [2]. Group 2: Economic Implications - If the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, the average effective tariff rate in the U.S. could drop from 16.3% to at least half, potentially leading to the refund of hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs [1]. - The estimated amount of tariff refunds could reach up to $1 trillion, which would have catastrophic consequences for the administration's trade agreements and ongoing negotiations [2].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China is significantly influenced by a legal battle within the U.S., where American companies, state governments, and trade associations are challenging the legality of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which could lead to a potential refund of up to $1 trillion in tariffs if the Supreme Court rules against the government [1][20]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Implications - The legal basis for the tariffs stems from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the U.S. President emergency powers to impose economic measures in response to significant threats [3]. - The Trump administration utilized the IEEPA to implement extensive tariffs, escalating from an initial 10% to as high as 100%, effectively bypassing Congress [5][6]. - A significant ruling from the Federal Circuit Court in August 2025 deemed most of the global tariff policies illegal, stating that the President lacked the authority to impose such broad taxation under the invoked law [8][10]. Group 2: Economic Consequences - As of August 2025, U.S. companies had already paid over $210 billion in what are considered illegal tariffs, with potential refunds reaching $750 billion to $1 trillion if the case extends into 2026 [13][15]. - The financial implications of a Supreme Court ruling against the Trump administration could lead to a catastrophic impact on the U.S. economy, equating to the annual defense budget [13][15]. - The tariffs have resulted in significant job losses in the U.S., with over 42,000 manufacturing jobs reportedly lost since the new tariffs were implemented, affecting sectors such as automotive, appliances, and electronics [18]. Group 3: Strategic Outcomes - The trade war, initially aimed at protecting American workers and manufacturing, has ironically led to job losses and economic burdens on U.S. consumers and small businesses, while China has managed to maintain its economic stability [17][20]. - The legal challenges against the Trump administration's tariffs highlight the checks and balances within the U.S. government, particularly the judiciary's role in curbing executive power [17]. - The upcoming Supreme Court hearings scheduled for November 5, 2025, will be pivotal in determining the future of these tariffs and the broader implications for U.S.-China trade relations [22].

Core Point - The article discusses the Democratic senators' final attempt to block the implementation of tariffs proposed by Trump, which they argue will increase annual expenses for American families by approximately $2,400 [1] Group 1 - Democratic senators are launching a last-ditch effort to prevent the tariffs from taking effect this week [1] - The proposed tariffs are seen as a significant issue for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, with Democrats emphasizing the financial burden on families [1] - Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire will request the Senate to pass a motion that would prevent the government from imposing these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1] Group 2 - The IEEPA has been used by the Trump administration as the legal basis for imposing the tariffs [1] - The motion requires only one senator to block the tariffs, but it is expected that Republicans will support the tariff increase [1] - This situation provides an opportunity for Democrats to force Republicans to publicly declare their support for the tariff hikes [1]

Core Viewpoint - China has reiterated its stance against tariff increases, emphasizing that trade wars and tariff battles yield no winners and that protectionism is not a viable solution [1][2]. Group 1: China's Position on Tariffs - China has consistently opposed tariff wars and the use of tariffs as tools for coercion, stating that arbitrary tariff increases do not benefit any party involved [2]. - The BRICS mechanism is highlighted as an important platform for cooperation among emerging markets and developing countries, promoting openness and inclusivity without targeting any specific nation [1][2]. Group 2: U.S. Tariff Developments - The U.S. is approaching a deadline for tariff negotiations set for July 9, with President Trump indicating that a combination of letters and agreements will be sent out to various countries [3][4]. - Trump confirmed that the related tariffs are set to take effect on August 1, with potential letters involving different amounts and wording for various economies [4]. - The U.S. has proposed significant "reciprocal tariffs" on allies, with rates as high as 25% for some countries and even higher for Southeast Asian nations [5]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Context - The U.S. International Trade Court has ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs, leading to questions about the legality of unilateral tariff notifications [7][8]. - Legal experts suggest that unilateral tariff imposition may violate international law and could be challenged in the World Trade Organization (WTO) [8].

[Table_Main] 证券研究报告 | 宏观点评 宏观专题 证券分析师 张浩 资格编号：S0120524070001 邮箱：zhanghao3＠tebon.com.cn 研究助理 相关研究 2025 年 06 月 15 日 一文读懂美国的《国家紧急状态法》 宏观 ABC 系列之七 [Table_Summary] 投资要点： 请务必阅读正文之后的信息披露和法律声明 2025 年特朗普政府利用 NEA 与 IEEPA 组合，以国家安全和贸易逆差为由，绕 过国会批准程序单方面宣布紧急状态，并对中国、加拿大、墨西哥及其他主要贸易 伙伴征收普遍高额关税。这一行动迅速遭遇法律挑战，美国国际贸易法庭（CIT） 裁定其违宪并颁布禁令，但随后被联邦巡回上诉法院暂时中止执行。本文将全面解 析美国的《国家紧急状态法》，从而了解特朗普是如何通过 NEA 与 IEEPA 组合， 绕开国会实行所谓的"对等关税"政策。 NEA 与 IEEPA：美国总统紧急权力的制度化与扩张。20 世纪 70 年代，美国国会 为防止总统滥用紧急状态权力，通过了《国家紧急状态法》（NEA），设立程序性限 制并规定紧急状态自动失效机制，试图加强国会监督。然 ...