如果对等关税被推翻，瑞银称，不要指望关税会消失，特朗普的B计划已准备好。 据央视新闻消息，当地时间11月5日，美国最高法院审议特朗普全面关税政策的合法性并听取口头辩论。据华尔街见闻文章，此前，联邦上诉法院 曾裁定，特朗普实施多项对等关税措施超越了总统的紧急权力范围，此次最高法院的审理正是针对下级法院裁决的上诉。 11月14日，据追风交易台消息，瑞银在最新报告中称，即使美国最高法院裁定当前通过《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）征收的"对等关税"非 法，政府也已准备好一套"B计划"工具箱，能够迅速重建大部分关税壁垒。 报告称，若IEEPA关税被推翻，美国加权平均关税税率（WATR）将从13.6%骤降至7.2%。但这只是暂时现象。通过启动《1974年贸易法》的第 122条和第301条等备用授权，预计税率能够迅速恢复至11.8%-12.6%的水平，与当前相差无几。 关税根基动摇：IEEPA授权面临最高法院挑战 当前美国政府关税政策的基石之一——《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）正面临最高法院的司法审查。瑞银称，法院多数法官对该法案用于征 收关税的合法性持怀疑态度。 如果法院在2026年初做出不利于政府的裁决，那么 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses President Trump's potential response to a Supreme Court ruling against his tariff policies, indicating that a "second plan" may be necessary if the court rules against him, which he believes would have devastating consequences for the U.S. economy [2][4]. Group 1: Legal Context and Implications - The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of Trump's core tariff mechanism, "reciprocal tariffs," with several justices expressing skepticism about the legal basis for these tariffs [4]. - The current tariffs are based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs, leading to claims of overreach by the Trump administration [5]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Frameworks - Alternatives to IEEPA include the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows for a maximum 50% tariff increase, and the Trade Act of 1974, which permits a maximum 15% tariff on imports within 150 days to address balance of payments deficits [6]. - Specific tariffs on steel and aluminum are based on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which has already seen over 700 "derivative products" added to the tariff list since spring [6]. Group 3: Implementation and Timing Concerns - Trump noted that while alternative legal frameworks could be explored, they would likely take more time compared to the current IEEPA-based approach, which allows for rapid implementation of tariffs through presidential executive orders [7]. - He emphasized the need for quick decision-making, stating that the current method is the best defense measure available [7]. Group 4: Financial Consequences of a Supreme Court Loss - If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the U.S. Treasury will need to address potential refund procedures for taxpayers, with estimates suggesting that the tax revenue at stake could reach between $750 billion and $1 trillion, half of which may require actual refunds [8]. - The U.S. Trade Representative indicated that not only the plaintiffs but also other taxpayers might seek refunds, with the specific procedures to be determined through discussions between the Treasury and the courts [8].

远在华盛顿州的企业主特拉维斯·麦克马斯特（Travis McMaster）正密切关注进展。其公司COCOON进口睡袋内衬、枕头等旅行配件，尽管期待法院裁 定关税违宪，但他已对持续征税及其后果做好心理准备——从放弃可能带来新业务的展会商机到压缩产品线。"我们见识过这位总统的执着，"麦克马斯特坦 言。 Atlantic Council智库国际经济项目主任乔什·利普斯基（Josh Lipsky）指出，围绕特朗普关税的疑问清单正在延长，如今既包括最高法院可能作出的判决 形式，也涉及是否要求退还已征收税款。 SHMET 网讯：美国总统特朗普运用广泛权力实施标志性关税的做法，周三在最高法院遭遇连番质疑，预示司法机构可能准备介入干预。然而无论最终 结果如何，备受关税折磨的企业与国家都将继续面临数月不确定性。 在地缘政治层面，利普斯基强调：若裁定特朗普依据IEEPA实施的关税非法，将意味着"不仅削弱总统的国际经济议程核心，更将冲击其外交政策议程 基础"。他表示，对华关税或更易找到替代法律依据，但不利裁决可能促使正与特朗普谈判的欧盟、巴西、印度等经济体重新校准立场。与韩国、越南等国 的贸易谈判同样面临变数——特朗普用作施压工具 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments regarding the legality of the Trump administration's "reciprocal tariffs" policy, with significant opposition from businesses, lawmakers, and former officials, who argue that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs is illegal [1][2]. Group 1: Legal and Political Context - Approximately 40 lawsuits have been filed challenging the Trump administration's tariff policy ahead of the Supreme Court hearing [1]. - The U.S. Senate passed a resolution to terminate the comprehensive tariff policy with a vote of 51-47, indicating a division within the Republican Party regarding tariff policies [1]. - Legal experts highlight that the case raises fundamental constitutional questions about the division of powers between Congress and the President regarding tariff imposition [2][3]. Group 2: Economic Implications - The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that the tariff policy has caused significant economic damage to businesses, leading to delayed capital investments and affecting consumer spending [2]. - The potential ruling could impact over $50 billion in additional tariffs expected to be collected by the government in 2025, which had previously alleviated concerns about U.S. debt levels [3][4]. Group 3: Future Legal Strategies - Even if the Supreme Court limits the use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs, the Trump administration may resort to other legal avenues, such as Section 301 and Section 232 investigations, to impose tariffs [4][5]. - Legal experts express concern that if the Supreme Court restricts the use of IEEPA, the administration might increase the frequency of targeted investigations, potentially leading to broader economic impacts [4][5].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court will hold a hearing on November 5 regarding a case where American companies are suing the Trump administration over global tariffs [1][6] - The Senate passed a resolution to terminate Trump's comprehensive tariff policy, with a vote of 51-47, reflecting bipartisan opposition [1][3] - The resolution still requires approval from the House of Representatives, which is expected to be challenging [1][3] Group 1: Legislative Actions - The Senate has passed three resolutions aimed at canceling tariffs imposed on Canada and Brazil, as well as the broader global tariffs [3] - Senator Tim Kaine criticized the chaotic nature of Trump's tariff strategy, suggesting it leads to confusion and unpredictability [3] - The House Speaker has delayed the vote on Trump's tariff proposals until March 2026, indicating a lack of urgency in addressing the issue [4] Group 2: Legal Challenges - Seven companies and several states are urging the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, claiming it is illegal [6][7] - The legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA has been contested, with previous court rulings suggesting that the President does not have such broad authority [7] - Learning Resources, a company involved in the lawsuit, argues that the tariffs could lead to the bankruptcy of many small businesses and result in significant financial losses for American consumers [7] Group 3: Political Dynamics - The internal division within the Republican Party regarding Trump's tariff policies is evident, with some members voting against the tariffs, highlighting concerns about their impact on the economy [5] - The ongoing partisan conflict is complicating the legislative process surrounding tariffs, as some Republican senators openly oppose the measures [5] - The Vice President's lobbying efforts to garner support for Trump's policies have not fully succeeded, indicating a growing dissent within the party [5]

Core Points - U.S. companies are urging the Supreme Court to uphold lower court rulings that deemed tariffs imposed by the Trump administration as illegal taxes on American businesses [1][3] - The legal basis for these tariffs, invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is being challenged as an overreach of presidential authority [4][5] Group 1: Legal Challenges - Seven companies and several states are contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, claiming they create unprecedented tax burdens [3] - The IEEPA allows the president to take economic control measures during a national emergency, but its application for tariffs is disputed [3][4] - The plaintiffs argue that IEEPA does not grant the president the unilateral power to impose tariffs, as it only allows for actions like freezing foreign assets [4][6] Group 2: Economic Impact - The tariffs are expected to lead to significant financial strain on small businesses, with claims that they could result in bankruptcies and an annual loss of at least $1,000 per average American [5][6] - The unpredictability of tariff changes is disrupting supply chains and harming relationships between businesses and their suppliers and customers [6] - Learning Resources claims that the tariffs could lead to a tax increase of over $3 trillion for American taxpayers over the next decade [6] Group 3: Court Proceedings - The Supreme Court is set to hear the case on November 5, with expectations that it will uphold the lower court's ruling against the legality of the tariffs [2][3] - The plaintiffs' briefs submitted to the court emphasize that tariffs fall under the constitutional authority of Congress, not the president [3][4] - The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision will determine the future of the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" and "fentanyl tariffs" [6][7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential legal challenges facing the Trump administration's tariff policies, particularly in light of a recent court ruling that deemed most of these tariffs illegal, and the administration's plans to respond to these challenges through alternative measures [1]. Group 1: Legal Context - On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the Trump administration's tariff measures are illegal, which undermines the administration's ability to use tariffs as a key economic policy tool [1]. - The appeals court has allowed these tariffs to remain in place until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court [1]. Group 2: Government Response - U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin indicated that the government has a backup plan in case the Supreme Court rules against the administration's tariff policies [1]. - Mnuchin is preparing a legal summary for the Attorney General that emphasizes the urgency of addressing long-standing trade imbalances and preventing fentanyl from entering the U.S. [1]. Group 3: Expert Opinions - Experts interviewed by the media expressed that Mnuchin's statements were not surprising, noting that the frequent use of Section 232 investigations suggests the Trump administration is exploring alternative tariff strategies beyond the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" [1].

Core Points - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are illegal, with a vote of 7 to 4 [1][5] - The ruling is a significant setback for the Trump administration, marking the second loss in the case "V.O.S. Selections v. Trump" [1][4] - The court has suspended the enforcement of the ruling until October 14, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court [1][8] Group 1: Legal Context - The case was initiated by a coalition of small business groups and Democratic-led states against the Trump administration's tariff policy [4] - The Court of Appeals affirmed parts of the lower court's ruling, stating that the power to impose tariffs lies with Congress, not the President [5][6] - The ruling indicates that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the authority to impose large-scale tariffs [5][6] Group 2: Financial Implications - If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, over $100 billion in tariffs may need to be refunded to businesses [1][4] - The U.S. Treasury reported that tariff revenues have reached $142 billion for the current fiscal year [12] - The cancellation of these tariffs could lead to significant financial repercussions for the U.S. economy, potentially reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade [11][12] Group 3: Industry Impact - The ruling is expected to protect U.S. businesses and consumers from the uncertainties and damages caused by these tariffs [8] - Small companies have been disproportionately affected by the tariffs, as they must pay upfront without the ability to defer payments [13] - The Trump administration is preparing alternative strategies to maintain tariffs through other domestic laws, despite potential legal limitations [13]

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].

Core Points - The fate of the reciprocal tariffs remains uncertain as a court case questions the legal basis for President Trump's significant tariff actions [1] - The case "VOS Selections v. Trump" is pivotal, with judges expressing skepticism about the authority granted to the president under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1][3] - If the Trump administration loses the case, it may have to seek congressional authorization for its tariff strategy, which could significantly impact its trade agenda [1] Legal Context - The judges are particularly focused on the absence of the term "tariff" in the IEEPA, which mentions "foreign exchange, payments, and currency" [3] - The argument presented by the Department of Justice claims that Congress has granted the president the power to regulate imports during a national emergency, which includes imposing tariffs [4] Market Implications - If the Trump administration wins, it would gain substantial new powers to impose and relax tariffs on foreign entities, setting a precedent for future presidents [5] - Conversely, a loss could lead to a murky future for Trump's tariff policies, with potential international disputes arising from countries seeking to revoke agreements made under the current tariff regime [5]