美国最高法院正在重新审视一项已经延续数十年的规则，这项规则限制了总统解雇联邦机构官员的权力。如果法院最终作出裁决，可能会赋予总统更广泛的 权力，允许他随意解雇行政部门的官员。 目前，法院正在审理一起案件，涉及联邦贸易委员会和美联储等独立机构的成员，长期以来，这些成员都被保护不受总统随意罢免。此案的背后，实际上是 联邦政府内部权力平衡的变化。如果最高法院决定扩大总统解雇官员的权限，可能会削弱这些独立机构的"防党派控制保护"，这将对联邦机构的独立性产生 深远影响。 如果这一变化发生，总统在经济监管、移民问题和刑事司法领域的权力将大幅提升。同时，针对政策突变的制约也将减弱。 目前，最高法院正在审理两项涉及联邦贸易委员会和美联储官员的案件。其中，特朗普政府在今年早些时候解雇了联邦贸易委员会委员丽贝卡·斯劳特，而 美联储委员莉萨·库克则获得了法院的暂时保护，防止其被免职。案件辩论计划于明年1月举行。 法院正在考虑两个核心问题：一是是否这些法定保护违反了三权分立原则；二是是否应推翻1935年确立的"汉弗莱遗嘱执行人案"裁决。 除了人事任命问题，最高法院在审理总统政策问题时的态度也在发生变化。特朗普政府第二个任期的前20周 ...

以下文章来源于新潮沉思录 ，作者潮思 新潮沉思录 . 新潮沉思录 本文来自微信公众号： 新潮沉思录 ，作者：丁毅超，题图来自：视觉中国 2025年9月5日，随着一纸行政命令，美国国防部"正式"更名为战争部。这无疑是特朗普对其宣称 的"深层政府"的又一次攻击。通过拆毁二战后美国政府内部为了维持全球霸主秩序所建立的官僚机 器，特朗普正在加速重塑美国政府的意识形态基准线。 特朗普的反对者则对此嗤之以鼻，纷纷斥责特朗普违宪，并将向法院提起诉讼。预计事情将很快陷入 熟悉的剧本，民主党任命的法官多数暂停行政令，特朗普政府则向上级法院上诉，直至最高法院。 美国两党斗争的白热化已是不争的事实。更为重要的是，特朗普大肆利用行政权扩权的行为更是将三 权分立的神话撕下了底裤。正如施米特在几十年前就指出的那样，主权归于决断，三权分立的怪象必 然会以斩下另外两个头颅告终。 特朗普的行政令 特朗普养活全球媒体人可能不只是一个笑话，而是一个事实。在上任不到九个月的时间里，特朗普的 第二任期给全世界贡献了许多传播素材。从马斯克的政府效率部门再到全球关税战争，特朗普总是能 够紧紧扣住全球媒体的心弦，长期霸占头条。特朗普如此高强度的整活以至于他 ...

2025年9月5日，随着一纸行政命令，美国国防部"正式"更名为战争部。这无疑是特朗普对其宣称的"深层 政府"的又一次攻击。通过拆毁二战后美国政府内部为了维持全球霸主秩序所建立的官僚机器，特朗普正 在加速重塑美国政府的意识形态基准线。 特朗普的反对者则对此嗤之以鼻，纷纷斥责特朗普违宪，并将向法院提起诉讼。预计事情将很快陷入熟悉 的剧本，民主党任命的法官多数暂停行政令，特朗普政府则向上级法院上诉，直至最高法院。 美国两党斗争的白热化已是不争的事实。更为重要的是，特朗普大肆利用行政权扩权的行为更是将三权分 立的神话撕下了底裤。正如施米特在几十年前就指出的那样，主权归于决断，三权分立的怪象必然会以斩 下另外两个头颅告终。 特朗普的行政令 特朗普养活全球媒体人可能不只是一个笑话，而是一个事实。在上任不到九个月的时间里，特朗普的第二 任期给全世界贡献了许多传播素材。从马斯克的政府效率部门再到全球关税战争，特朗普总是能够紧紧扣 住全球媒体的心弦，长期霸占头条。特朗普如此高强度的整活以至于他短短消失两三天就引发其身患重病 甚至死亡的猜测。事实证明，自由派正道人士同样无法拒绝拥抱他们嗤之以鼻的阴谋论和反智主义（只要 是符合他们 ...

一段时间以来，美国政府的关税政策陷入多起国内司法诉讼，并连收美国国际贸易法院、美国联邦巡回 上诉法院两张司法"红牌"。美国联邦最高法院日前宣布，将快速审议政府所征多数关税的合法性，定于 11月首周听取口头辩论。有美媒指出，这将是联邦最高法院首次对本届政府核心政策的合法性作出判 定，其结果或可左右美国关税政策的未来命运。 专家分析，美国国内涉及关税政策的诉讼不断，根源在于该政策的实际效用及制定程序均引发巨大争 议。同时，该事件也折射出当下美国政治体制存在的诸多深层次危机。 据悉，美国联邦最高法院将审议的关税包括：总统特朗普援引1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》面向全球 征收的10%"基准关税"、对未与美国达成贸易协议的贸易伙伴征收的更高额度关税以及所谓"芬太尼关 税"。 今年5月，位于纽约的美国国际贸易法院3人合议庭就小企业主和美国12州所提诉讼裁定，总统无权援引 《国际紧急经济权力法》征收上述关税。8月29日，美国联邦巡回上诉法院审理特朗普政府上诉后，以7 比4的投票结果维持原裁决。裁决书认为，《国际紧急经济权力法》授权总统在紧急情况下颁布某些经 济措施，以应对"异常和特殊威胁"，但征税权力为宪法赋予国会专属， ...

Group 1 - The recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals indicates that President Trump's authority to impose tariffs on multiple countries may be legally challenged, potentially ending his trade war [2][3] - Trump has formally appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may hear the case and could issue a ruling by the summer of 2026 [3] - The U.S. judicial system operates independently of the executive branch, meaning the President cannot directly influence court decisions or overturn them [5][7] Group 2 - The judicial system in the U.S. can limit presidential power through judicial review and legal interpretation, declaring presidential actions unconstitutional or unauthorized [7] - If Trump disregards court rulings, Congress could intervene through hearings, funding restrictions, or impeachment proceedings, highlighting the checks and balances in the U.S. government [9] - The outcome of Trump's Supreme Court case may not significantly impact ongoing international negotiations, particularly with countries like India and China, as perceptions of U.S. power may shift following recent military displays [9]

Core Points - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Trump's executive order imposing tariffs on multiple countries, including China and India, was illegal, emphasizing the principle of separation of powers in the U.S. government [1][3][5] - The court specifically stated that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs arbitrarily, as it was intended for managing financial transactions during emergencies [1][5] - The ruling could potentially require the U.S. to refund up to $1 trillion in tariff revenues if the tariffs are deemed invalid, which has raised concerns about fiscal chaos [3][5] Impact on Trade Relations - The ruling directly affects export businesses in countries like China and India, with India facing significant tariffs on copper, steel, aluminum, and auto parts, leading to potential retaliatory measures [7] - India's exports to the U.S. for copper are valued at $360 million, while steel, aluminum, and auto parts exceed $2 billion, making the tariffs particularly damaging for Indian exporters [7] - The Indian government has gained confidence in negotiations with the U.S. following the court's decision, as public opinion in India has reacted positively to the ruling [7]

Core Viewpoint - The independence of the Federal Reserve is under threat due to political pressures, particularly from former President Trump, which could fundamentally alter the U.S. monetary policy landscape and the global financial system [3][6][9]. Group 1: Historical Context - The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 to stabilize the U.S. financial system after the 1907 financial panic, characterized by its independence and long-term appointments for board members [1]. - Throughout its history, U.S. presidents have respected the Federal Reserve's independence, even during times of economic distress, with the most they could do being to nominate new board members [6]. Group 2: Current Events - Lisa Cook became the first Black woman on the Federal Reserve Board in May 2022, known for her cautious monetary policy stance and criticism of high tariffs, which she argues contribute to inflation [3][4]. - Trump's recent actions, including public criticism of Cook and pressure to lower interest rates, indicate a desire to influence monetary policy ahead of the 2026 midterm elections [8][9]. Group 3: Legal and Institutional Implications - Trump's attempt to dismiss Cook raises significant legal questions regarding the independence of the Federal Reserve, as the Federal Reserve Act requires just cause for such actions [4][6]. - The case may escalate to the Supreme Court, potentially impacting the long-standing independence of the Federal Reserve and the credibility of the U.S. dollar [9][10]. Group 4: Market Reactions - Following Trump's actions, the market reacted with a 0.8% drop in the dollar index and a 2.3% increase in gold prices, indicating heightened uncertainty and potential shifts in capital flows [8][9]. Group 5: Future Outlook - The outcome of the legal battle could reshape the future of U.S. monetary policy and the global financial landscape, with implications for the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency [10]. - The situation highlights the contrast between U.S. monetary policy and China's more stable and independent approach, which may offer a more reliable framework in uncertain times [10].

Core Viewpoint - President Trump's warning about the potential termination of trade agreements with major partners like the EU, Japan, and South Korea if the Supreme Court rules against the government in a tariff case, which he claims would have a "catastrophic impact" on the U.S. economy [1] Group 1: Legal and Economic Implications - The U.S. Department of Justice has formally appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn a recent unfavorable ruling regarding the legality of the "reciprocal tariff" policy [2] - Trump's statement links the survival of trade agreements, valued at nearly $1 trillion, directly to the Supreme Court's decision, indicating the high stakes involved [2] - Economic experts, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, argue that the tariff policy shifts the tax burden onto American consumers and businesses, potentially increasing inflation by 1.5 percentage points [2] Group 2: Political Reactions - Legal experts highlight the case's significance regarding presidential authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval, noting the potential for a divided Supreme Court decision [3] - Congressional Democrats criticized Trump's remarks, with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden stating that the administration has failed to clarify the legal status of the trade agreements [3] - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described Trump's comments as "another reckless threat" [3] Group 3: Judicial Process and Global Impact - The Justice Department submitted an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of maintaining tariffs for protecting the U.S. manufacturing base [4] - Legal experts predict that the Supreme Court is likely to hear the case due to its significant implications, although a final ruling may not come until just before the 2026 presidential election [4] - The former Director-General of the World Trade Organization expressed that the case affects not only U.S. law but also the stability of the global trading system [4]

这关税裁决的影响，不只是美国国内的政治八卦。对印度来说，这绝对是天上掉下来的 "意外之喜"。 2024 年的时候，印度对美出口突破了 780 亿美元，这里面钢铁、铝制品、机械这些东西就占了三成 多。之前特朗普搞的关税，把这些产业折腾得苦不堪言。 但印度真能高枕无忧吗？恐怕没那么简单。美国那套制度，表面上法治，骨子里是利益集团互相博弈。 美国钢铁行业协会已经放话要去国会游说，要求立新法案、搞"反倾销""反补贴"调查，阻止印度钢铁大 规模入美。别忘了，铁锈带是美国大选的票仓，无论是特朗普还是万斯，谁都不敢轻易得罪本土钢铁工 人。到头来，就算总统没权力加关税，国会、商务部也能用别的花样设卡。美国贸易政策的"变脸速 度"，全世界都见识过。 法院这次的操作，其实就是美国式 "制衡" 的教科书例子，简直是 "活教材"。总统想把贸易权死死攥在 自己手里，国会和法院就用司法判决、立法干预这招，把权力又拉回来，不让他一家独大。 三权分立、产业游说、媒体舆论，这三方面一旦动起来，没人能一手遮天，就算是总统也不行。万斯跳 出来表态，不只是在党内刷存在感，让大家记住 "还有我这么个人"，更是在跟党内的传统精英和大金 主喊话 —— 共 ...

Group 1 - The case will be submitted to the Supreme Court, with Trump seeking to expedite the decision process [1] - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on August 29 that Trump's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was overreaching, but allowed current tariffs to remain in effect until October 14 [3] - Trump argues that removing tariffs could lead to another economic depression, as his administration relies on tariffs for billions in revenue and domestic manufacturing support [3] Group 2 - Trump warned that eliminating tariffs could turn the U.S. into a "third world" country, while small businesses claim these tariffs harm U.S. companies reliant on imports and raise consumer prices [4] - The appeals court ruled 7-4 that Congress likely did not intend to grant the president unlimited power to impose tariffs, stating that the law does not explicitly include the power to levy tariffs [6] - A related case is under review by another federal appeals court, which also found that tariffs exceeded presidential authority, with a deadline of October 14, 2025, for the Trump administration's tariff policy [6] Group 3 - The deadline set by the U.S. Court of Appeals means the Supreme Court must decide whether to hear the case before this date, with a potential final ruling by 2026 [8] - Regardless of the outcome, this dispute over presidential power will redefine the boundaries of presidential authority in trade policy, raising concerns about the separation of powers [8]