来源：新民晚报 美国最高法院20日公布裁决，认定美国《国际紧急经济权力法》未授权总统大规模征收关税，"对等关 税"被叫停。随后，特朗普宣布将对来自所有国家和地区的商品加征15%的关税，令全球贸易不确定性 再度上升。 美国最高法院裁决背后有什么因素和影响？我们请专家为您详细解读。 ——编者 美国最高法院20日公布裁决，认定总统特朗普根据1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）开征的大 规模关税违法。裁决公布后，"对等关税"停止实施，特朗普立即宣布将根据《1974年贸易法》122条 最高法院裁决后，美国政府停止征收违法关税 图IC 警卫在美国最高法院门前巡逻 款，对全球商品征收10%的关税，次日又宣布将122条款关税上调至15%。 徐明棋 上海社会科学院研究员、上海欧洲学会名誉会长 特朗普政府已经明确表示，不会退还已经征收的关税。民主党主政的州和开市客等零售企业如果要求特 朗普政府退还税款，将不得不启动复杂的诉讼程序，进行旷日持久的法律博弈。 美国2025年全年的关税收入约为2640亿美元，其中大约1370亿美元属于特朗普根据IEEPA征收的关税。 已经落入口袋的关税，特朗普不会轻易退还。 重创未来执政能力 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article presents an optimistic outlook for the future of America, contrasting historical pessimism with potential positive developments in governance and policy [3][4]. Group 1: Historical Context - Founding fathers like Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton expressed concerns about the sustainability of the American experiment, fearing external threats and internal chaos [3]. - The pessimism surrounding the republic has persisted since the Declaration of Independence, with contemporary political issues echoing historical grievances [4]. Group 2: Political Developments - By 2026, there may be judicial constraints on presidential emergency powers, potentially limiting the current president's ability to act unilaterally [5]. - The article speculates on a scenario where the president's authority is curtailed, particularly regarding the National Guard and immigration enforcement [5][6]. Group 3: Immigration and Economic Policy - The Trump administration's second phase of immigration policy aims to balance high-skilled immigration with reforms to asylum laws, garnering bipartisan support [6]. - Economic indicators show positive trends, including increased solar energy production and a stable tariff environment, contributing to a more predictable economic landscape [6][7]. Group 4: Political Landscape and Elections - The Republican Party gained a majority in the House during the midterm elections, aided by the president's political achievements and a stable international situation [7]. - The article suggests that despite the unpredictability of American politics, historical precedents indicate that unexpected outcomes can occur [7].

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on tariffs is described by Trump as a "life and death battle for America," emphasizing the potential consequences of losing the case, which could leave the U.S. defenseless against other countries [1]. Group 1: Legal Context - The Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding whether Trump's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was overreaching [1]. - The case involves multiple tariffs implemented during the Trump administration, with plaintiffs arguing that the law does not grant the president the authority to impose taxes [1]. - The Justice Department contends that the tariffs were necessary for addressing trade deficits and national emergencies [1]. Group 2: Economic Implications - Trump claims that a favorable ruling would lead to "strong and fair financial and national security," while a loss would result in the U.S. being "almost defenseless" [1]. - He links the strong performance of the U.S. stock market to the economic security provided by the tariff policies [1]. Group 3: Government Response - White House officials are attempting to alleviate concerns, stating that even if the Supreme Court rules against the government, it can still impose tariffs through other trade authorizations [1]. - Treasury Secretary Scott Bansenet plans to attend the Supreme Court hearing to observe the proceedings [1]. Group 4: Potential Outcomes - Analysts suggest that the ruling could either limit presidential powers or set a precedent for future administrations to bypass Congress in establishing tariffs [1].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a directive allowing Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook to remain in her position temporarily until January 2026, pending oral arguments regarding former President Trump's legal justification for her dismissal [1] Group 1: Legal and Institutional Context - The Supreme Court's directive serves as a temporary barrier against Trump's attempt to dismiss Cook, thereby reinforcing the independence of the Federal Reserve's decision-making process [1] - This action indicates the Supreme Court's willingness to consider imposing limitations on presidential powers, contrasting with previous instances where Trump successfully removed officials from other federal agencies [1] Group 2: Political Implications - Since taking office in January, Trump has been advocating for interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve to stimulate the economy and reduce government borrowing costs [1] - Trump's dissatisfaction with the Federal Reserve's reluctance to lower interest rates led to his attempt to dismiss Cook on grounds of alleged mortgage fraud, a move described as "unprecedented" and controversial [1] Group 3: Background on Lisa Cook - Lisa Cook was nominated by President Biden in 2022 and confirmed by Congress, making her the first African American woman to serve as a Federal Reserve Board member [1] - If Cook were to be dismissed, Trump could nominate a successor, potentially altering the composition of the Federal Reserve Board, which currently includes two members appointed during Trump's first term [1]

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court issued a directive allowing Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook to remain in her position until January 2026, pending oral arguments regarding President Trump's legal justification for her dismissal [1] - This action by the Supreme Court temporarily prevents Trump from removing Cook, thereby establishing a protective barrier for the Federal Reserve's independent decision-making [1] - The Supreme Court has previously permitted Trump to dismiss officials from other agencies, indicating a willingness to consider limitations on presidential power [1]