2025.09. 01 美国联邦巡回上诉法院在当地时间8月29日做出裁决，以7比4的投票结果裁定，特朗普政府的大部分 全球关税均属非法。该法院并同意在10月14日之前不执行该裁决，以便给予特朗普政府向最高法院 上诉的时间。 值 得 注 意 的 是 ， 此 次 裁 决 是 特 朗 普 政 府 一 方 在 这 起 " 决 定 （ 关 税 ） 成 败 " 的 案 件 ——"V.O.S. Selections诉特朗普案"中第二次败诉。 该案后续如何？会如何影响美国关税政策和外贸企业？将耗时多久？特朗普政府是否能够在最高法院 翻案？若特朗普政府最终败诉，是否将退回已经收缴的关税？环环相扣，步步攻守。 英国杜伦大学法学院副院长、跨国法教授兼全球政策研究所联合主任杜明对第一财经记者表示，特朗 普政府会上诉到美国最高法院，如果美国最高法院拒绝审理或者接受审理后判决特朗普政府败诉，那 么已经征收的1000亿美元以上的关税或要连本带利退还。 他补充道，如商家要求美国政府赔偿其他损失，若获支持，那美国政府要"砸锅卖铁"了。 本文字数：2785，阅读时长大约5分钟 作者 | 第一财经 冯迪凡 8月30日清晨，不少外贸微信群一下活跃起 ...

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 Points - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are illegal, potentially leading to the refund of over $100 billion in tariffs [1][2] - The ruling is a significant setback for the Trump administration, which may appeal to the Supreme Court [1][10] - The case centers on the authority to impose tariffs, questioning whether the president has the power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [5][8] Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The U.S. Court of Appeals made a 7-4 decision against the Trump administration, agreeing to delay the ruling's implementation until October 14 to allow for a Supreme Court appeal [1][10] - The case was initiated by a coalition of small businesses and Democratic-led states, challenging the legality of the tariffs [5] - The Appeals Court affirmed that the power to levy tariffs is constitutionally granted to Congress, not the president [7][8] Group 2: Economic Implications - If the Supreme Court upholds the Appeals Court ruling, it could lead to the return of over $100 billion in tariffs collected [2][12] - The cancellation of these tariffs is viewed as potentially disastrous for the U.S. economy, according to Trump and his administration [12][16] - The current tariff revenue for the fiscal year has reached $142 billion, indicating the financial impact of these tariffs on government income [14] Group 3: Industry Impact - Small businesses are particularly affected by the tariffs, as they face significant financial burdens compared to larger corporations [17] - The ruling may create uncertainty for U.S. businesses and consumers, as highlighted by legal representatives involved in the case [10] - The potential for refunds and changes in tariff policy could reshape the landscape for international trade and U.S. economic strategy [1][16]