Core Points - The U.S. government has been ruled illegal in its use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, marking a significant setback for the aggressive trade policies of the Trump administration [1][3] - The ruling raises questions about the validity of previous trade agreements made with the U.S. [1][5] - The ruling was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court, which stated that the power to impose tariffs is a core authority of Congress, not the President [3][5] Summary by Sections Legal Ruling - The Federal Circuit Court maintained the previous ruling that the Trump administration's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were illegal, with a vote of 7 to 4 [3] - The court emphasized that while the Act allows the President to take certain economic measures in emergencies, it does not grant the authority to impose tariffs through executive orders [3] Economic Impact - The ruling could have direct implications for the U.S. economy and may trigger reactions in global markets, as trade partners reassess the legal standing of U.S. tariffs [5] - The Trump administration collected approximately $107 billion in tariffs from February to July, a significant portion of which was based on the now-ruled illegal measures [4] Ongoing Trade Negotiations - The U.S. is still engaged in trade negotiations with multiple countries, including the UK, Vietnam, and the EU, but the legal uncertainty surrounding tariffs may complicate these discussions [6][7] - Japan's trade representative canceled a trip to the U.S. due to dissatisfaction with proposed U.S. tariffs, indicating potential friction in ongoing negotiations [7]

Core Points - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of Trump's global tariff policies implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are illegal, although current tariffs will remain in effect until October 14 to allow for an appeal [1][2][5] - Trump's administration expressed concerns that the ruling could jeopardize ongoing trade negotiations and provoke retaliation from other countries, particularly India, which has been subjected to a 50% tariff [1][6][10] Group 1: Legal Context - The IEEPA, enacted in 1977, grants the U.S. President significant powers to respond to national emergencies or major threats from abroad, but the court clarified that it does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs [4][5] - The court's decision emphasized that the power to levy taxes, including tariffs, is constitutionally reserved for Congress, not the President [5][11] Group 2: Implications for Trade - The ruling could disrupt existing trade agreements and negotiations with key partners, as highlighted by concerns from U.S. Commerce Secretary and other officials about potential retaliatory measures from trade partners [7][10] - The decision may also impact the financial implications for the U.S. Treasury, as the government has collected approximately $159 billion in tariff revenue this year, more than double compared to the previous year [10][11] Group 3: Political Reactions - Trump criticized the ruling as politically motivated and warned that its implementation would lead to disastrous consequences for the U.S. economy [9][12] - The administration plans to appeal the decision, with expectations that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court may favor Trump's position [11][12]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by President Trump are illegal, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the authority to impose these tariffs [2][4]. Group 1: Court Ruling - The Federal Circuit Court upheld a previous lower court ruling with a 7-4 vote, indicating that the law Trump cited does not authorize him to impose most tariffs [4]. - The court's decision allows the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court [5]. Group 2: Implications for Trade Policy - The ruling is seen as a significant blow to Trump's aggressive trade policies, as it challenges the legality of tariffs imposed without congressional approval [6]. - Trump criticized the court's decision on social media, asserting that all tariffs remain effective and warning of disastrous consequences if they are removed [3][6].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of President Trump's global tariff policies are illegal, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs, exceeding his powers [1]. Summary by Sections - The Court's Decision: The Washington-based Federal Circuit Court ruled that Trump's tariffs could remain in effect until October 14 to allow the government to appeal to the Supreme Court [1]. - Legal Basis: The court indicated that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not explicitly empower the president to impose tariffs, and Trump's actions exceeded his authority [1]. - Impact on Other Tariffs: The ruling does not affect tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under other regulations, such as the steel and aluminum tariffs [1]. - Trump's Response: Trump criticized the appellate court's decision on social media, calling it "wrong" and emphasizing that the current tariffs are still in effect, warning that their removal would lead to a "total disaster" for the U.S. [1]. - Historical Context: After taking office, the Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement a series of tariffs without congressional approval. In May, the U.S. International Trade Court ruled this action illegal, stating that the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to regulate trade with foreign nations [1].

加州州长发言人2日强调，此案目前只是基于程序原因被驳回，设在华盛顿的哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法 院上周的裁决，不仅表明联邦地区法院有对这一诉讼的审理权，而且判决结果裁定了特朗普政府关税政 策违法，"多家法院已裁定特朗普不得使用紧急权力来实施这些非法关税"。 "我们的论点很简单：特朗普无权征收这些破坏性的关税——《国际紧急经济权力法》根本就没有授权 征收关税，"邦塔2日的声明说，"我们对我们的诉求（得到采纳）充满信心，期待继续为加州充满活力 的经济、企业、工人和家庭而战。" 在这一诉讼中，加州方面指控说，特朗普的关税政策预计将使加州消费者承担250亿美元额外支出，导 致超过6.4万个工作岗位流失，造成加州居民总体损失约400亿美元。 加州此前以州政府和州长加文·纽森的名义，于4月16日向加州北区联邦地区法院提起诉讼，指控联邦政 府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》实施所谓"对等关税"政策违法，并称此举损害各州、消费者和企业的广 泛利益。加州也是第一个就关税问题起诉特朗普政府的州。 上周在加州北区联邦地区法院的听证会上，代表特朗普政府的辩方提出动议，要求法官将此案移交设在 纽约的美国国际贸易法院审理。加州反对该动议，要求法官 ...

Group 1 - The Trump administration requested a federal appeals court to block a ruling from the District Court of Columbia that deemed its tariff policy "illegal" [1] - On May 29, the District Court of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction against the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [1] - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled on May 28 to prohibit the enforcement of the tariffs, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed this ruling on May 29 [1] Group 2 - Elon Musk expressed that he does not want to take responsibility for the actions of the U.S. government, suggesting that the Efficiency Department has become a scapegoat [2] - Trump announced an increase in steel tariffs to 50% [2]

Group 1 - The U.S. Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated the Trump administration's "reciprocal tariffs" policy, allowing the government to impose tariffs while the case is under review [1] - The Court's decision came after the U.S. International Trade Court had previously ruled against the Trump administration's tariff measures, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize such global tariffs [2] - The reinstated tariffs include a 30% tariff on imports from China, a 25% tariff on certain goods from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% general tariff on most U.S. imports, while tariffs on automobiles, steel, and aluminum remain unaffected [2] Group 2 - The market reaction to the reinstatement of tariffs was muted, with minor increases in major U.S. stock indices and little change in the U.S. dollar index [1] - White House Press Secretary criticized the International Trade Court's ruling as "judicial overreach," indicating the administration's strong stance on tariff policies [1]

Core Points - A federal appeals court has temporarily allowed several tariffs imposed by Trump on international trade partners to remain in effect [1] - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated that the decisions and permanent injunctions made by the International Trade Court will be temporarily suspended until further notice [1] - The lower court's ruling will be delayed at least until June 9, when both parties will submit legal arguments regarding the suspension of the case [1] Summary by Sections - **Court Ruling**: The appeals court's decision indicates a pause on the lower court's ruling that questioned Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [1] - **Next Steps**: The appeals court will weigh the issues in the case and consider whether to extend the suspension of the lower court's decisions [1] - **Legal Context**: The International Trade Court had previously ruled that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not grant him unlimited tariff authority [1]

O 0 Address 376 (199 133 11 11 the first 裁定非法 白明表示，按照1977年生效的《国际紧急经济权力法》，美国总统的确有权在紧急状态下对国会的权力"越俎代庖"，但并没有明确总统是否有权决定关税。 按照美国的法律，美国的关税权在国会，但现在特朗普随意解释总统的特殊权力，在很大程度上既有关税政策的制定权，又有关税的执行权，客观上是对美 国"三权分立"体制的否定。 提出上诉 美国媒体分析称，这项裁决是本届特朗普政府遭遇的最大司法挫折之一，相当于全盘否定了特朗普第二任期内关税战的法律基础。有美国贸易律师认为，这 是近几十年来美国总统在贸易政策上遭遇的最大法律挫折，"创造了历史"。法院通常对总统在贸易政策、外交事务等方面的权力给予较大尊重。 此番裁决暂停了特朗普政府对大多数美国进口商品征收的10%普遍关税，以及以打击芬太尼和非法移民为由对中国、墨西哥、加拿大加征的部分关税，但针 对汽车及钢铝行业征收的25%关税不受影响。 据美国媒体报道，美国以往通常援引《国际紧急经济权力法》对他国实施制裁或冻结资产，特朗普是第一个援引该法律来全面加征关税的美国总统。不过， 美国国际贸易法院负责裁 ...

Core Viewpoint - A coalition of 12 U.S. states has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that its tariff policies are unlawful, with a court hearing scheduled for May 21 [1] Group 1: Legal Arguments - The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration has misinterpreted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, leading to baseless tariff impositions [1] - The Act specifies that a national emergency can only be declared under unusual and extreme circumstances, which the current trade situation does not meet [1] - The defense contends that tariffs are not a tax issue but a means to regulate international trade, asserting that Trump has the authority to declare a national emergency and implement measures without court interference [1] Group 2: Current Challenges - The Trump administration's tariff policies are currently facing at least seven judicial challenges [1]