被美最高法叫停此前关税，特朗普竟搬出《1974年贸易法》向全球加征关税15%，全球贸易不确定性再 升级。 当地时间2月20日，美国联邦最高法院裁定，特朗普政府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）实施 的大规模全球关税缺乏法律依据。 美国总统特朗普的关税政策是其经济政策的关键组成部分，最高法院的裁决标志着对他权力的一次重大 制约，也是对其第二个任期经济议程的一次沉重打击。 判决公布后，特朗普迅速宣布将通过其他法律手段推出新的10%全球关税，为期150天，并于当地时间 21日把这一关税水平提高至15%。特朗普在社交平台发文称，接下来几个月里，美国政府将确定并颁布 新的"合法关税"。 特朗普的反应表明，他并不打算就此鸣金收兵，而是要换一条路继续往前冲。 特朗普于2025年2月首次援引IEEPA，对来自中国、墨西哥和加拿大等国的商品加征关税。 数月后，在其所谓的"解放日"将关税范围迅速扩大至几乎所有国家，税率区间为10%至50%。特朗普将 长期贸易逆差界定为"非同寻常的威胁"，并以此作为进一步征税的依据。据沃顿商学院估计，在IEEPA 之下，特朗普征收了约1750亿美元的关税。 当地时间2026年2月20日，美国 ...

Group 1 - The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that prevents former President Trump from dissolving the Department of Education [1]

Group 1 - The U.S. Court of Appeals has temporarily suspended the International Trade Court's ruling that deemed the Trump administration's tariff measures illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [1][3] - The International Trade Court ruled that the President lacks the authority to impose comprehensive tariffs on nearly all trading partners without Congressional approval, which is seen as a significant judicial setback for the Trump administration [1][5] - The ruling provides the U.S. government with 10 days to halt the imposition of tariffs, indicating a potential shift in trade policy [1][5] Group 2 - A preliminary injunction has been issued by the District Court in Washington D.C., extending the suspension of the tariff policy for 14 days, but it currently applies only to two toy companies involved in the lawsuit [3][4] - The lawsuits against the tariff policy include at least seven cases, initiated by small businesses and states claiming the Trump administration's actions were unauthorized and lacked legitimate Congressional backing [5]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the Trump administration's tariff policies are illegal, marking a significant judicial setback for the administration and potentially impacting its trade agenda [1][2]. Summary by Sections Court Ruling Details - The ruling specifically addresses lawsuits from five small U.S. businesses and twelve states, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose global tariffs or retaliatory tariffs [1][2]. - The court's decision permanently prohibits the enforcement of the related tariff executive orders, which were enacted against products from Canada, Mexico, and China [1]. Reactions to the Ruling - Legal experts indicate that the ruling means all U.S. importers are exempt from the tariffs involved in the lawsuits, not just the plaintiffs [2]. - The ruling is seen as a comprehensive rejection of key controversial actions taken by the Trump administration during its second term [2]. Government Response - The Trump administration has filed an appeal against the ruling and may continue to pursue the case up to the Supreme Court [3][5]. - The White House argues that the trade deficit constitutes a "national emergency" and that the decision should not be made by unelected judges [3]. Implications for Tariff Policy - Experts believe that the ruling will significantly affect the Trump administration's tariff agenda, especially as judicial constraints limit the effectiveness of tariff measures against trade partners [5]. - The ruling may weaken the administration's negotiating position in ongoing trade discussions, as foreign governments may be less inclined to make concessions [6]. Impact on Trade Negotiations - The court's decision has created uncertainty in U.S. trade policy, potentially leading trade partners to halt further concessions until clearer judicial guidance is provided [6]. - The ruling gives foreign governments new leverage in trade negotiations, complicating the U.S. administration's efforts to achieve its trade objectives [6].