Core Points - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that President Trump's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded legal authority, declaring the trade deficit as a "national emergency" [1][3][5] - The court's decision prohibits the enforcement of the "reciprocal tariffs" announced on April 2, emphasizing that tariffs must be uniform and have nationwide effect [2][6] - The ruling indicates that the IEEPA does not grant the president authority to implement "global tariffs" or "retaliatory tariffs," and the court found no significant factual disputes, leading to a summary judgment against the U.S. government [3][5] Impact of the Ruling - The court's decision mandates the cancellation of the reciprocal tariffs and those previously imposed on China, Canada, and Mexico related to the fentanyl issue, giving the White House 10 days to cease these tariffs [8] - Following the ruling, the Trump administration immediately filed an appeal [7] - Analysts suggest that the ruling could lead to a temporary easing of tariffs, which may positively impact the U.S. dollar and stock market if the decision holds [12] Market Reactions - The ruling has led to increased trading activity in the A-share market, with significant inflows into stock ETFs observed, indicating a shift in investor sentiment [14][27] - Despite recent inflows, there were notable outflows from major indices like the CSI 300 and CSI 500, suggesting volatility in market confidence [22][25] - The overall trading volume in the A-share market has fluctuated, with a return to over 1 trillion yuan in trading on certain days, reflecting active capital market conditions [27]

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming Supreme Court ruling on a labor dispute involving the dismissal of two labor committee members by President Trump poses a significant threat to the independence of the Federal Reserve and could undermine the foundational principles of American governance [2][4][6]. Group 1: Legal Implications - The case challenges the precedent set by the Humphrey's Executor v. United States ruling, which states that the President cannot dismiss independent agency officials for political reasons [2][4]. - The Supreme Court's conservative justices have allowed Trump to suspend the two labor committee members, indicating a potential shift in judicial interpretation that could affect the independence of various regulatory bodies [4][6]. - The ruling could set a precedent that undermines the dual protections of the Federal Reserve's independence, which is currently safeguarded by statutory term limits and judicial precedent [4][6]. Group 2: Market Reactions - Wall Street is reacting to the potential loss of Federal Reserve independence, with Goldman Sachs warning that gold prices could soar above $4,500 if this independence collapses [4]. - The U.S. dollar has already fallen back to levels seen in early 2024, reflecting a broader loss of trust in the financial system [4][6]. Group 3: Historical Context - The situation draws parallels to the 1970s when President Nixon pressured the Federal Reserve, leading to stagflation with inflation rates reaching 14% and unemployment exceeding 10% [4][6]. - The current political maneuvering raises concerns about the future of independent regulatory agencies in the U.S., as the outcome of this case could impact over 50 independent bodies, including the SEC and FCC [6][8]. Group 4: Broader Implications - The ruling could signify a shift towards a more centralized executive power, challenging the foundational principle of checks and balances in the U.S. government [6][8]. - The potential for presidential control over interest rates could transform monetary policy from an economic tool into a means of political power [8].