8月29号这天，美国联邦巡回上诉法院给了特朗普的"对等关税"一记结结实实的重拳——直接判定他靠着《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）加征的大部分 全球关税，纯属越权，根本不合法！不过也没赶尽杀绝，留了个缓冲期，等到10月14号，让最高法院来最终定调。 巧了不是，几乎同一时间，加州联邦法官也撂了句硬话：特朗普把国民警卫队和海军陆战队调去洛杉矶"帮忙执法"，这事同样没道理，不合法！法院的木槌 刚落下，全国的抗议声浪立马就起来了——劳工们、教育界的老师、服务业的工作人员，还有工地上的工人，举着标语就往街上冲，那阵仗可不小。 不过这次裁决也没把路堵死，留了个缓冲期，让现有政策先撑到10月中旬，给上诉留了点时间。但白宫和司法部硬气得很，一口咬定总统这么做合法，全是 为了国家安全和经济安全，半点不让步。 舆论场上倒没一边倒地骂，有分析师直接泼冷水：就算最高法院最后站在下级法院这边，关税也未必会黄，大不了换个"法律口袋"接着用——比如拿国家安 全当由头搞232调查，或者走《1974年贸易法》第122条里的国际收支紧急措施，条条大路通罗马嘛！ 232这张牌最近几年打得可熟了，钢铁、铝还有相关的衍生品，税率一路涨到50%，征税 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of former President Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the recent ruling that deemed most of his global tariffs illegal, highlighting the potential economic consequences and market reactions associated with this legal battle [1][3][4]. Group 1: Trump's Position and Market Impact - Trump plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, asserting that a loss could lead to unprecedented economic turmoil, while a victory could cause the stock market to soar [4][6]. - The uncertainty surrounding the appeal has contributed to a decline in the stock market, with the S&P 500 dropping approximately 1% and the Dow Jones falling over 380 points [4][7]. - Trump claims that the stock market's downturn is a direct result of the recent court ruling, emphasizing that the market desires the tariffs [7]. Group 2: Legal Context and Implications - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Trump's tariffs were largely illegal, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose such tariffs [7][14]. - The ruling allows the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court [7][14]. - Legal experts suggest that if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling, it could significantly weaken Trump's ability to impose tariffs and disrupt his economic strategy [14][15]. Group 3: Alternative Strategies and Government Response - Treasury Secretary Bentsen expresses confidence in the Supreme Court's support for Trump's use of IEEPA but is also preparing alternative legal strategies [10][12]. - Bentsen compares the current trade deficit situation to the 2008-2009 financial crisis, emphasizing the urgency of addressing trade imbalances and the fentanyl crisis [11][12]. - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, the government may resort to other legal tools, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which allows for significant tariffs against countries deemed discriminatory to U.S. businesses [12][14].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of a U.S. appellate court ruling that deemed most of the global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration illegal, and Trump's intention to appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn this decision [1][4][10]. Group 1: Legal and Economic Implications - Trump plans to appeal the appellate court's ruling to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the urgency of a quick resolution due to the tariffs' impact on the nation's financial structure [3][4]. - The appellate court's decision indicates that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the authority to impose tariffs, which could significantly affect U.S. trade policy [4][10]. - If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling, it would severely limit Trump's ability to impose tariffs, undermining his economic strategy to compel companies to invest in the U.S. [10][11]. Group 2: Market Reactions - Following the announcement of the appellate court's ruling, U.S. stock markets experienced declines, with the S&P 500 down approximately 1% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping over 380 points [1][4]. - Trump attributes the market downturn to uncertainty surrounding the tariff situation, suggesting that a favorable ruling could lead to a significant market rally [1][4]. Group 3: Alternative Legal Strategies - The U.S. Treasury Secretary expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would support Trump's use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs but is also preparing alternative legal strategies in case of a loss [9][10]. - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, the administration may resort to other legal frameworks, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, to impose tariffs, albeit with less efficiency [9][10]. Group 4: Potential Consequences of Ruling - Legal experts warn that a Supreme Court ruling against the tariffs could lead to significant economic repercussions, including potential financial collapse due to the loss of tariff revenue, which totaled $159 billion as of July [10][11]. - The ruling could also set a precedent affecting the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress regarding trade policy [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are illegal, but this does not mean an immediate suspension of the tariffs as Trump plans to appeal to the Supreme Court [1][3][4]. Summary by Sections Court Ruling and Implications - The U.S. Court of Appeals determined that Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs exceeded the authority granted by the act, which does not explicitly allow for tariff imposition [3][7]. - The ruling was passed with a 7-4 majority, maintaining the validity of tariffs until October 14, 2025, allowing time for Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court [3][4]. Future Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court is expected to review the case after its summer recess ends on September 29, with a potential decision on whether to extend the suspension of the ruling by October 14 [4][5]. - Historical precedents suggest that Supreme Court decisions can take several months, with the earliest possible ruling by the end of the year and the latest by summer 2026 [4][5]. Economic and Trade Impact - The ruling does not immediately disrupt import and export activities, as the tariffs will remain in effect during the appeal process [8]. - Despite the tariffs, strong demand from non-U.S. regions is expected to mitigate some of the downward pressure on exports from China [8][10]. Export Growth and Trade Diversification - In the first seven months of 2025, China's exports to ASEAN and Africa grew by 13.5% and 24.5%, respectively, indicating a shift towards trade diversification [10]. - The growth in high-tech and machinery exports also supports the overall export performance, with significant increases noted in new energy and advanced manufacturing sectors [10].

Group 1: Legal and Judicial Developments - On May 29, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal, marking a judicial constraint on Trump's executive power in trade policy[1] - The ruling emphasizes the constitutional principle of separation of powers, highlighting the legal controversy surrounding Trump's tariff policies and their impact on the U.S. trade governance system[1] - Although the CIT ruling has nationwide effect, the Trump administration can delay its implementation through appeals or by invoking other legal grounds[1] Group 2: Tariff Implications and Future Actions - Following the CIT ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal, and the appellate court allowed Trump to continue imposing import tariffs, with responses due by June 5 and June 9[2] - Trump announced a doubling of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50% starting June 4, disrupting ongoing negotiations with trade partners like Canada and the EU[1] - The ability to delay the execution of the CIT ruling may influence the establishment of a normalized tariff mechanism, with the Justice Department seeking a long-term stay on the ruling[2] Group 3: Constitutional and Legislative Concerns - The core debate centers on whether Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the presidency, as only Congress has the authority to levy tariffs[3] - The lawsuit was initiated by Arizona, with multiple states participating, reflecting a broader concern over executive overreach in tariff imposition[3] - The ruling indirectly criticizes Congress for allowing the expansion of presidential powers and calls for clearer legislative boundaries regarding tariff authority[4] Group 4: Alternative Taxation Strategies - The Trump administration may explore other taxation methods to circumvent judicial constraints, including tariffs based on national security under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962[4] - Potential expansion of tariffs to other industries, such as semiconductors and lumber, could be pursued under existing trade laws[4] - The outcome of the appeals process may affect the leverage Trump has in trade negotiations, with partners likely to pause concessions until a definitive judicial ruling is made[4]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court (CIT) ruled that Trump's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was an overreach of authority, requiring the government to cease these tariffs within 10 days, which has raised market concerns [2][13]. Group 1: Impact of CIT Ruling - The CIT ruling affects all tariffs imposed under IEEPA, including a 20% tariff on fentanyl from China and a 25% tariff on fentanyl from Mexico and Canada, while tariffs imposed under Section 232 (e.g., 25% on steel and aluminum) remain unaffected [2][5]. - Current tariffs remain in effect as Trump has appealed the CIT ruling, and the Federal Circuit Court has granted a temporary stay, allowing tariffs to continue until June 9 [2][4]. - The key focus will be whether the Federal Circuit Court will approve a long-term stay after June 9, which could either suspend all IEEPA tariffs or leave current tariffs unchanged [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Controversies - The main legal controversies surrounding Trump's tariff policy include whether he has the authority under IEEPA to impose global tariffs without Congressional approval and whether trade deficits and fentanyl influx constitute an "unusual or special threat" [6][20]. - The CIT found that IEEPA does not grant the President unlimited tariff authority, emphasizing that tariff imposition is a power reserved for Congress [21][22]. - The court also ruled that the tariffs aimed at addressing trade deficits exceeded IEEPA's scope, suggesting that the appropriate legal framework for such tariffs would be the Trade Act of 1974 [25][26]. Group 3: Future Actions and Market Perception - If Trump ultimately loses the appeal, he may still impose tariffs using other legal provisions, such as the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for tariffs up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days [32][33]. - Market analysts generally believe that the CIT ruling will have limited impact on Trump's tariff policy, as the government has alternative channels to impose tariffs, albeit with potentially slower implementation [11][35]. - Analysts from major financial institutions suggest that while the CIT ruling introduces uncertainty, it is unlikely to significantly alter the overall outcome of U.S. trade policies [36].

Summary of Key Points from the Conference Call Industry or Company Involved - The discussion primarily revolves around the **U.S.-China trade relations** and the **tariff policies** implemented by the Trump administration. Core Points and Arguments 1. **Complex U.S.-China Trade Negotiations**: The trade negotiations between the U.S. and China are characterized by fundamental disagreements on issues such as rare earth exports and chip restrictions, indicating a long-term tension in trade relations [1][3][6] 2. **Judicial Challenges to Tariff Policies**: Trump's tariff policies face multiple judicial challenges, with conflicting rulings from international trade courts and circuit courts reflecting deep divisions within the U.S. regarding these policies [1][4][8] 3. **Impact of Tariffs on Specific Industries**: The U.S. plans to impose high tariffs on pharmaceuticals, particularly targeting India and China, which is expected to significantly impact related chemical companies [1][10] 4. **Trump's B Plan**: In response to judicial challenges, Trump has developed a "Plan B" to ensure the continuation of high tariff policies by leveraging existing legal provisions and mobilizing congressional support [1][27][33] 5. **Significance of the Supreme Court**: The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to play a decisive role in the future of tariff policies, with the potential for significant implications depending on its rulings [18][20][24] 6. **Tariff Structure**: Trump's tariff policy includes three layers: national-level tariffs, product-specific tariffs, and special tariffs targeting specific countries like China, Canada, and Mexico [9][31] 7. **Judicial Outcomes and Their Implications**: If the Washington court upholds the New York court's ruling, it could lead to the cancellation of several tariffs, significantly affecting U.S.-China trade dynamics [14][16][26] 8. **Internal Opposition to Tariff Policies**: There is notable internal opposition within the U.S. government and among businesses against Trump's tariff policies, yet this has not deterred his administration from pursuing these strategies [2][6][36] 9. **Long-term Economic Strategy**: Trump believes that increasing tariffs will attract foreign investment into U.S. manufacturing, leading to long-term economic growth despite short-term pain [37] Other Important but Possibly Overlooked Content 1. **Trade Volume with Key Countries**: In 2024, exports from China, Canada, and Mexico to the U.S. totaled $1.3 trillion, accounting for 42% of total U.S. imports, highlighting their significant role in U.S. trade [11] 2. **Court Rulings and Their Legal Basis**: The New York court ruled against Trump's tariffs based on the "major question doctrine," indicating that such significant economic decisions require congressional authorization [23][34] 3. **Future Legislative Movements**: Republican lawmakers are considering new legislation to authorize the president to take action on trade deficits, which could further entrench Trump's tariff policies [35]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled against President Trump's tariff policy, stating that he overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs on countries with trade surpluses with the U.S. This ruling challenges the legality of the tariffs and emphasizes the constitutional power of Congress in regulating trade [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Challenge and Court Ruling - The U.S. International Trade Court's ruling on May 28, 2023, blocked Trump's tariff policy, asserting that the President does not have the authority to impose broad tariffs without Congressional approval [2][3]. - The lawsuit was initiated by a coalition of 12 states, arguing that Trump's tariff policy was an unlawful exercise of power [2]. - The court's decision undermines Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a legal basis for imposing tariffs, which could lead to the cancellation of tariffs imposed under this act [2][3]. Group 2: Implications for Trade Policy - The ruling is expected to significantly impact the Trump administration's trade agenda, potentially limiting its ability to use tariffs as a tool for trade protectionism [3][6]. - The decision may embolden other countries in their negotiations with the U.S., as it strengthens their position against U.S. trade pressures [3][9]. - The ruling could lead to a reassessment of U.S. trade policies, as domestic pressures from affected industries and political divisions grow [9][10]. Group 3: Market Reactions - Following the court's decision, there was a notable market reaction, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures rising over 1%, indicating optimism regarding a potential easing of trade tensions [7][8]. - The ruling is likely to influence sectors such as technology and industrials, which may see gains, while defense and domestic steel industries could experience pullbacks [8]. - The overall market sentiment reflects a belief that the tariff policies may become more moderate in the future, despite ongoing uncertainties [9].