最近，围绕美国关税政策和总统权力边界的争议，又一次被推到风口浪尖。美国最高法院刚刚作出的一个关键裁决，不但 影响到特朗普第二任期的关税工具箱，也在重新塑造美国对外贸易和国内经济政策的运转方式。 一、最高法院裁决，改变了什么？ 这次争议的核心，是最高法院以6比3的票数，否定了特朗普去年推出的一系列关税安排的合法性。特朗普强烈反对，但随 即用行动回应：在裁决出来数小时内，他宣布对全球商品统一加征10%的新关税，并表示还会动用其他法律授权，把自己 的关税路线坚持下去。到了第二天，这个新关税税率又从10%提高到15%。 与他之前可以随时抛出"关税威胁"不同，这次之后，他要再用同样的方式，就没那么自由了。过去，特朗普习惯用关税快 速回应地缘政治变化，或者他认为对美国不公平的做法。比如他可以随口提到，要对反对其格陵兰相关计划的欧洲国家加 税，或威胁对购买伊朗石油的国家征收关税，将其作为谈判筹码。这套打法，在最高法院这次裁决后，被大幅限制。 原因不在于他完全失去了关税权，而是最高法院明确指出：他后续能动用的法律依据，都附带了严格的程序和法律约束。 换句话说，他必须按规定走调查、评估、听证等一整套流程，很难再像过去那样，单凭 ...

这些钱本来被用来填去年税收法案的窟窿——减税造成的赤字，靠关税补。 现在退税潮一来，财政窟窿不仅补不上，还可能裂得更大。 美国最高法院一纸判决，直接把特朗普政府赖以支撑财政和贸易战略的核心工具打成了非法。 总统想靠《国际紧急经济权力法》收关税？法院说不行。 1977年通过的IEEPA，根本没给总统单方面加征关税的权限——哪怕打着"国家安全"或"对等报复"的旗号。 六位大法官投了赞成票，包括首席大法官罗伯茨，还有特朗普自己任命的戈萨奇和巴雷特。 自由派那三位自然也站在多数方，但真正致命的是，连特朗普亲手提拔的人也没护着他。 裁决书里写得干脆："IEEPA并未授权总统征收关税。" 国会要是真想放权，会明说，会设限，可这次，它什么都没做。 所以，总统越权了。 这不是第一次判他输。早在去年，纽约的国际贸易法院就认定，援引IEEPA征税违法。十二个州和一批小企业主联手告赢了。 联邦巡回上诉法院后来以7比4维持原判。 现在，最高法院盖棺定论，等于把整套基于IEEPA的关税体系连根拔起。 所谓"芬太尼关税"、全球范围的"对等关税"，统统失去法律基础。 白宫嘴上强硬，说有备选方案，但具体怎么操作，一个字没透露。 官员私下嘀咕 ...

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court of China reported a 14.54% year-on-year increase in the number of new administrative cases related to the restriction of personal freedom, totaling 5,497 cases in 2025 [1] - The court aims to strictly protect citizens' personal rights and health rights, enhancing judicial review of administrative cases that limit personal freedom [1] - There was a 23% year-on-year increase in new first-instance labor and social security cases, amounting to 42,000 cases in 2025 [1] Group 2 - The court emphasizes the protection of new employment forms, such as delivery riders and ride-hailing drivers, ensuring proper recognition of work-related injuries [1] - In 2025, 25,099 administrative cases were concluded with judgments against administrative agencies [1] - The Supreme People's Court has released two batches of typical cases regarding administrative enforcement against enterprises to clarify the boundaries of law enforcement [2]

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 Viewpoint - Hikvision Canada has resumed operations and filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government to challenge the order to cease operations, asserting its legal rights and seeking fair treatment [2][4]. Group 1 - On June 27, the Canadian government ordered Hikvision Canada to stop operations, citing national security concerns [5]. - Hikvision Canada has applied for a judicial review of the Canadian government's decision and has requested a temporary injunction to suspend the shutdown order [4][5]. - As of July 8, Hikvision's stock price was 27.48 CNY per share, with a total market capitalization of 253.7 billion CNY [5]. Group 2 - The company claims to have complied with all applicable laws and regulations since entering the Canadian market and maintains that its products and technologies do not threaten the security of Canada or any other regions where it operates [5]. - The Chinese Ministry of Commerce expressed strong dissatisfaction and opposition to the Canadian government's actions against Hikvision [5].