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].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court held a hearing regarding the Trump administration's appeal on tariff rulings, which could generate trillions in revenue over the next decade [1] - The case tests the limits of presidential power in imposing tariffs and whether it infringes on Congress's authority [2][3] Tariff Authorization - The hearing lasted nearly two and a half hours, with government representatives arguing in favor of tariffs and opposing counsel representing businesses and states [2] - Trump is the first president to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, claiming it is necessary for national security [2] - The Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs, raising questions about the legality of Trump's actions [2][3] Major Questions Doctrine - The Supreme Court has previously used the "major questions doctrine" to overturn significant policies, requiring clear legislative authorization for actions with substantial economic and political impact [3][4] - The lower court ruled against Trump, stating that the tariffs lacked legal basis under this doctrine [4] Implications of the Hearing - The outcome of the case could have significant consequences, including potential refunds to importers if the tariffs are deemed illegal [6] - Recent data indicates that tariffs imposed under IEEPA have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue from February 4 to September 23 [6] - Market predictions regarding the likelihood of the Supreme Court supporting Trump's tariffs have decreased significantly following the hearing [6]

综合央视新闻报道，作为美国高院开庭的背景，美国国际贸易法院今年5月就小企业主和美国12州所提诉讼裁定，特朗普无权援引《国际紧急经济权力法》 征收所谓的"对等关税"，以及其他的同类关税。随后美国联邦巡回上诉法院在8月维持原判。 随着事关全球经贸前景的"特朗普关税案"周三在美国高院开庭审理，大法官们接力抛出的质疑论调令市场对这项关键政策的前景愈发看衰。 据悉，在周三逾两个半小时的辩论中，美国高院的大法官们轮番对双方代表提问。整体节奏表明，多数大法官对政府依靠宣布紧急状态来无限制地实施大范 围全球关税感到疑虑。 倍受关注的是，在美国高院的保守派多数中，多名关键成员对关税合法性公开提出质疑。 美国高院首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在庭审中表示，这些关税是"对美国人征税，而征税历来是国会的核心权力" 。罗伯茨同时表示，本案应受"重大问题原 则"约束——联邦机构在采取具有深远经济或政治影响的行动时，需要国会的明确授权。 另一名保守派大法官戈萨奇，也对美国政府代表声称国会已经授权特朗普实施关税提出质疑。 按照特朗普政府的逻辑，《国际紧急经济权力法》赋予总统一系列工具以应对国家安全、外交和经济紧急情况。其中有一项关键条款写明总统可以 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a significant case regarding Trump's global tariffs, which could impact billions in refunds and the fate of tariffs imposed during his presidency [1][2]. Group 1: Case Background - The case is described as potentially the "most important" by Trump, determining the legality of tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which does not explicitly authorize tariff imposition [1]. - A federal court previously blocked Trump's tariff policy, ruling that he overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs on countries with a trade surplus with the U.S. [1]. Group 2: Supreme Court Dynamics - The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump playing a crucial role in the case [2]. - The justices' past indications suggest that they may not uniformly support Trump's claims of broad presidential power in imposing tariffs [2]. Group 3: Individual Justices' Perspectives - Kavanaugh is seen as the most likely to support Trump's tariff policy, emphasizing presidential power in national security matters, but may view the case as a question of congressional authority over tariffs [3][4]. - Gorsuch's position is more uncertain; as a textualist, he may challenge the legal basis for Trump's tariffs, questioning the invocation of a law that does not explicitly mention tariffs [4][5]. - Barrett, also a textualist, may oppose the tariffs, viewing them as a significant policy decision that requires congressional authorization [6]. Group 4: Chief Justice's Considerations - Chief Justice Roberts tends to focus on the practical implications of court decisions rather than strict legal doctrines, which could influence his vote [7]. - The justices may require strong legal arguments before confronting the president directly, indicating a cautious approach to the case [8].

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on November 5 regarding the legality of Trump's tariff policies is seen as a pivotal moment that could reshape the U.S.-China trade war and impact Trump's political future [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Context - The U.S. International Trade Court previously ruled that Trump's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was an overreach of authority, stating that trade deficits do not constitute a national emergency [3]. - The Federal Circuit Court upheld this ruling with a 7-4 vote, emphasizing that the Act was intended for financial crises and not for initiating trade wars [3]. - Trump's legal strategy now relies on the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, which includes three justices he appointed, but the court has historically required congressional authorization for significant economic decisions [3][5]. Group 2: Political Implications - Trump's potential attendance at the hearing is viewed as a form of pressure on the justices, raising concerns about the integrity of the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers [5]. - The outcome of the case could have significant financial implications, with estimates suggesting that if the tariffs are deemed illegal, the government may need to refund billions in tariffs collected, further straining the U.S. budget [5][6]. Group 3: International Reactions - The situation has prompted international responses, such as India's declaration to restrict the export of rare earth materials to the U.S., which some interpret as support for China, although India's actions are seen as self-serving rather than a strategic alliance [6]. - China's recent export controls on rare earths are part of its strategy to counter the tariff war, indicating a complex interplay of global trade dynamics [6]. Group 4: Future Outlook - The November 5 ruling is anticipated to be a critical juncture for both the U.S. and China, with potential ramifications for international trade order and the effectiveness of unilateral tariff measures [8]. - Regardless of the ruling, the ongoing trade conflict highlights the challenges of unilateralism and the risks of self-inflicted economic harm through protectionist policies [8].

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on November 5 regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration represents a critical juncture for the U.S. market, with potential implications for presidential power and economic policy direction [1][3]. Legal Basis and Implications - The core of the legal dispute revolves around the invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by the Trump administration, which allows the president to impose tariffs in response to a "national emergency" [4][5]. - The effective consumer goods tariff rate has risen to 17.9%, the highest level since 1934, due to tariffs that took effect on April 2 [6]. Government's Position - The White House expresses confidence in the legality of the tariffs, citing three main arguments: trade deficits as a unique external threat, the IEEPA not explicitly excluding tariffs as an emergency tool, and periodic congressional review of these tariffs [7]. Legal Community's Perspective - The mainstream legal opinion, including conservative scholars, suggests that the government's legal basis is weak, with a significant likelihood of losing the case based on the "major-questions doctrine," which requires explicit congressional or constitutional authorization for actions of substantial economic and political significance [8][9]. Market Reactions and Economic Impact - The outcome of the Supreme Court case is viewed as a "Damocles sword" over Wall Street, with the potential for two drastically different futures depending on the ruling [10]. - Current market pricing has somewhat incorporated the impact of tariffs, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessenet predicting annual tariff revenues exceeding $500 billion in the coming years, which could help reduce the fiscal deficit [10]. Consequences of a Ruling - If the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the White House may need to refund billions in tariffs, significantly impacting fiscal policy and undermining the unilateral economic strategy of the Trump administration [12]. - Conversely, a ruling in favor of the Trump administration would greatly expand presidential power, allowing for unilateral economic decisions without congressional approval, effectively granting a "quasi-royal" authority [14].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case on November 5 regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which could lead to significant economic and political consequences [1][2] - The case centers around the invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by the Trump administration to justify tariffs, claiming trade deficits constitute a national emergency [3][4] - The outcome of the case could either validate the administration's broad powers or challenge the legal basis for such unilateral economic measures [5][9] Legal Context - The Trump administration argues that the IEEPA provides the president with extensive powers to impose tariffs in response to national emergencies, with tariffs having raised the effective consumer goods tariff rate to 17.9%, the highest since 1934 [3][4] - However, many legal scholars, including conservatives, believe the administration's legal foundation is weak, citing the "major-questions doctrine" which requires significant economic actions to have clear congressional authorization [5][6] Market Implications - The potential ruling is viewed as a "Damocles sword" over Wall Street, with the outcome likely to influence market pricing and fiscal strategies [7] - If the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the government may need to refund billions in tariffs, impacting fiscal stability and potentially destabilizing the unilateral economic strategy of the Trump administration [8] - Conversely, a ruling in favor of the administration could expand presidential powers significantly, allowing for unilateral economic decisions without congressional approval, which may lead to market volatility if combined with negative economic indicators [10]

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on November 5 regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration could significantly reshape presidential power and economic policy in the U.S. [1] Group 1: Legal Basis and Implications - The core of the judicial confrontation revolves around the Trump administration's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from 1977, which grants the president broad powers in response to a "national emergency" [2] - The tariffs implemented on April 2 have raised the effective tariff rate on consumer goods in the U.S. to 17.9%, the highest level since 1934 [2] Group 2: Government's Position - The White House expresses confidence in the legality of the tariffs, with trade advisor Peter Navarro providing three main arguments: trade deficits represent an "unusual and extraordinary" external threat, the IEEPA does not explicitly exclude tariffs as a "emergency" tool, and these tariffs will undergo periodic congressional review [3] Group 3: Legal Community's Perspective - The mainstream legal opinion, including many conservative scholars, argues that the government's legal basis is weak, with a high likelihood of losing the case, primarily based on the "major-questions doctrine" which requires explicit congressional or constitutional authorization for significant economic and political actions [4][5] Group 4: Market Reactions and Economic Consequences - The outcome of the Supreme Court case is viewed as a "Damocles sword" over Wall Street, with potential for two drastically different futures depending on the ruling [6] - If the tariffs are deemed illegal, the White House may need to refund billions in tariffs, impacting fiscal policy, and the unilateral economic strategy of the Trump administration could be fundamentally undermined [7] - Conversely, a ruling in favor of the Trump administration would greatly expand presidential power, allowing for unilateral economic decisions without congressional approval, potentially leading to market volatility if negative economic indicators coincide with a loss [9]

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court will review the legality of the government's tariffs, marking the first time it will assess a core policy of the current administration, with oral arguments scheduled for the first week of November [1][2] - The ongoing lawsuits regarding tariff policies reflect significant domestic controversy over their effectiveness and the procedures used to implement them, highlighting deeper issues within the U.S. political system [1][3] Summary by Sections Tariff Policy and Legal Challenges - The tariffs under review include the 10% "baseline tariff" imposed globally and higher tariffs on trade partners without agreements, as well as the "fentanyl tariff" [2] - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the President lacks the authority to impose these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a decision upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals [2][3] - The legal basis for these tariffs has been challenged, with arguments that the President's actions bypassed Congress, which constitutionally holds the power to levy taxes [3][4] Economic Impact - The effective tariff rate on imported goods has reached nearly 19%, the highest since the Great Depression, significantly above the typical 2-3% rate [4] - Increased tariffs are estimated to cost American households an additional $2,400 annually, contributing to rising inflation and economic strain [4] Political and Judicial Implications - The Supreme Court's decision could either affirm the President's unilateral power in trade policy or reinforce Congressional authority, impacting future trade negotiations and fiscal stability [5][7] - The current political climate, characterized by intense partisan conflict, has led to numerous lawsuits against the administration, raising questions about judicial independence and the effectiveness of the political system [9][10] - The ongoing legal battles reflect a broader struggle over the balance of power among the branches of government, with potential implications for the future of U.S. governance [6][10]

追溯这一司法理论的发展历程，其雏形最早出现在2014年的公用事业空气监管集团诉美国环保署案中。 当时正值奥巴马执政时期，案件争议焦点是环保署对燃煤电厂碳排放的新规。最高法院在判决中首次提 出，涉及重大经济影响的监管政策需要国会明确授权这一概念。虽然该案仅针对环境监管领域，但其确 立的司法理念为后续发展埋下伏笔。到2022年西弗吉尼亚诉环保署案时，这一理论已发展成熟。由首席 大法官罗伯茨主笔的判决书，以6:3的票数彻底推翻了拜登政府的发电厂碳排放计划，并明确宣告：涉 及重大经济和政治意义的政策必须获得国会明确授权。此后，该原则在2023年拜登诉内布拉斯加州案中 得到进一步强化，导致总额达4300亿美元的学生贷款减免计划流产。 特朗普重返白宫后，贸易政策立即成为其执政议程的核心议题。这位以美国优先为口号的总统在上任首 周就签署行政令，宣布对来自中国、欧盟等主要贸易伙伴的商品加征全面关税，平均税率从原先的3% 飙升至25%。这项政策旨在通过提高贸易壁垒来缩减美国长期存在的巨额贸易逆差，同时为本土制造业 提供保护。然而政策实施仅三个月，就遭到美国进口商联盟的强烈抵制。由V.O.S.精选公司牵头，联合 全美12个州的进 ...