Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal battle regarding the Trump administration's imposition of high tariffs on multiple countries raises questions about the limits of executive power and whether such actions are unconstitutional [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing to debate whether the Trump administration's tariff actions constitute an overreach of authority [1]. - The case stems from an appeal against a ruling by the U.S. International Trade Court that temporarily blocked the President's broad use of tariffs [1]. - The court is examining the interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and whether it grants the President unlimited tariff authority without Congressional approval [2][4]. Group 2: Historical Context and Arguments - The Trump administration's tariffs, which range from 10% to 41%, are based on a broad interpretation of IEEPA, which critics argue has never granted such extensive tariff-setting powers [4][5]. - Historical precedents, such as the Nixon administration's temporary tariffs, are being cited, but the current tariffs lack a specified end date and alter the established tariff schedule [5][6]. - The government argues that IEEPA allows for broad import regulation, while critics assert that the act does not explicitly mention tariffs and that Congress has not authorized such expansive powers [6][8]. Group 3: Potential Outcomes and Implications - If the court rules against the Trump administration, it may lead to significant financial implications, including the potential requirement for the government to refund tariffs already collected [7][9]. - The total tariffs collected under IEEPA and other trade laws have exceeded $150 billion, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year [8]. - The complexity of refunding tariffs raises questions about who would be eligible for refunds, as the costs are often passed through the economic system [9].

Group 1 - Senate Minority Leader Schumer criticized the recent US-EU trade agreement as "false" and lacking legal binding power, stating that it would lead to price increases for American families [1] - Schumer pointed out that Europe has acknowledged the agreement's lack of legal enforceability, questioning the ability to control whether investments will occur [1] Group 2 - The Trump administration's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs is currently being challenged in federal court, with a key hearing scheduled for Thursday [2] - The case "VOS Selections v. Trump" is one of six federal lawsuits contesting Trump's authority to impose tariffs under emergency powers, with legal experts expressing doubts about the legality of such actions [3][4] - Plaintiffs argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs, as it has never been used for this purpose in its nearly 50-year history [4] Group 3 - Following the appellate court hearing, new tariffs imposed by Trump are set to take effect, affecting major trading partners like Canada and Mexico [4] - Analysts predict that Trump's tariffs may face an unfavorable outcome in court, potentially nullifying nearly all trade progress made during his administration [5] - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, recent trade agreements and proposed tariffs could be deemed illegal, impacting his administration's trade policy significantly [5]

Core Viewpoint - The legal challenge against President Trump's trade strategy, particularly the use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is set to be debated in a key court hearing, which could undermine recent trade agreements [1][2]. Legal Dispute over Tariff Authority - The central issue is whether the Trump administration has overstepped its authority by invoking IEEPA to impose tariffs, with the government claiming trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking constitute a "national emergency" [2][3]. - The plaintiffs, consisting of several small business owners, argue that IEEPA has never been used for tariff imposition in its nearly 50-year history and does not explicitly grant the president such power [2][3]. - A previous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. International Trade Court favored the plaintiffs, stating that Trump exceeded his legal authority in using IEEPA, but this ruling has been temporarily stayed pending the upcoming appeal [2][3]. Broader Context of Legal Challenges - The "VOS Selections" case is one of several lawsuits challenging the applicability of IEEPA, with over six federal lawsuits targeting the same issue [3]. - Another case, "Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump," has already established a broader ruling that IEEPA does not permit unilateral tariff actions by the president [3]. Potential Supreme Court Involvement - Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming court ruling, it is widely anticipated that the case may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court due to its implications for presidential power, congressional authority, and global trade [4]. - Legal experts and market analysts are closely monitoring the situation, with concerns that a ruling against the Trump administration could render recent trade agreements "illegal" [4]. White House Contingency Plans - Analysts suggest that if the IEEPA route is blocked, the White House may resort to alternative legal frameworks, such as Sections 122, 232, 301, and 338 of the Trade Act [6]. - This shift could maintain similar average tariff levels but may lead to a more complex and unpredictable trade environment [6].

美国商务部长卢特尼克：特朗普选择《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）是因为它快速、全面。 ...

证券研究报告：宏观报告 发布时间：2025-06-03 研究所 分析师:李起 SAC 登记编号:S1340524110001 Email:liqi2@cnpsec.com 研究助理:高晓洁 SAC 登记编号:S1340124020001 Email:gaoxiaojie@cnpsec.com 近期研究报告 《费用下行支撑盈利改善，关税分担恐 倒压上游价格》 - 2025.05.28 宏观观点 特朗普对等关税法院受挫，有待更换法律依据 ⚫ 核心观点 北京时间 5 月 29 日上午，美国国际贸易法院推翻了特朗普总统 关于对等关税的行政措施。三名法官表示，对等关税已超越《国际紧 急经济权力法》（IEEPA）授予总统的权限。 法院指出，IEEPA 中的"调节……进口"一词并未授权总统征收 无上限的关税；此外，法院提及《1974 年贸易法》122 条款的存在， 证明了即使"美国国际收支逆差巨大且严重"，也无需动用紧急权力， 总统只需在规定的程序限制下采取有限的补救措施即可。 此次判决对总统滥用 IEEPA 加征关税的合法性提出了质疑，若判 决最终落地，意味着包括 10%基础关税、对等关税，以及以"国家紧 急状态"为由（ ...

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration's tariff actions have faced significant legal challenges, with federal judges ruling against the imposition of tariffs on toy importers in Illinois, indicating that the administration's approach may be unconstitutional and unauthorized by Congress [1][4]. Group 1: Legal Rulings - Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a ruling to block tariffs on toy importers Learning Resources and hand2mind, stating that the Trump administration's tariffs on trade with countries like China are illegal [1]. - The U.S. International Trade Court also ruled against the Trump administration's tariff policies, asserting that the president exceeded his authority by imposing tariffs on countries with trade surpluses with the U.S. [4]. - Both courts concluded that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose such tariffs [5]. Group 2: Impact on Companies - Learning Resources and hand2mind, which employ around 500 workers across several states, argued that the tariffs could lead to their closure despite having survived the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. - Following the court's decision, shares of toy companies Mattel (MAT) and Hasbro (HAS) experienced fluctuations, with Mattel maintaining a gain and Hasbro slightly increasing its gains after initially dipping [2].

特朗普4月启动的"对等关税"被美国国际贸易法院认定为超越总统权限（Reuters） 这是对第二任特朗普政府关税政策的首个司法判决。法院命令停止执行的关税包括"对等关税"， 以及以打击非法药物为名，对加拿大、墨西哥、中国等国加征的额外关税。 这些关税均基于《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA），由特朗普总统以宣布国家紧急状态为前 提，通过总统权限启动。 根据判决书，法院裁定总统无权在全球范围内征收关税，指出"IEEPA并未赋予这一权限"。法院 表示特朗普依据IEEPA启动关税政策"超出了总统被赋予的权限"。法院认定这一系列关税无效， 命令政府"永久停止"相关措施。 版权声明：日本经济新闻社版权所有，未经授权不得转载或部分复制，违者必究。 法院认为示特朗普关税政策"超出了总统被赋予的权限"。美国白宫发言人5月28日表示：决定如何 应对紧急事态并不是由未经选举产生的法官来做的。政府将运用一切行政权力来应对这一危机， 重振美国的伟大…… 日经中文网 https://cn.nikkei.com 针对美国中小企业等以特朗普关税违反宪法为由提起的诉讼，美国国际贸易法院5月28日裁定， 对特朗普关税发出停止执行的命令。法院认定 ...