当 美国国际贸易 法院 一纸裁决叫停了"对等关税"，特朗普可能搬出"替代法案 "来继续加征关税。 据央视新闻，当地时间5月28日， 美国国际贸易 法院阻止了美国总统特朗普4月2日宣布的关税政策生效，并裁定特朗普越权 ，对向美国出口多于进口的国家征 收全面关税。 据追风交易台消息，高盛在最新的报告中分析表示，美法院叫停只是"Nothingburger"（无关紧要的小事），预计特朗普政府可能动用122条款征税，为后续启 动一系列301条款调查争取时间，338条款以及232条款也在考虑范围内。 "绕开"裁决或赢得上诉可行性几何？ 美法院发布裁决后，白宫迅速强硬回应，称将动用"行政权力的每一杠杆"反击这一"未经选举的法官"的裁决。 "绕开"裁决或赢得上诉可行性几何？ 高盛表示，鉴于美法院要求在10天内停止征收关税，特朗普政府在这么短的期限内赢得上诉的可能性不大。 不过，中泰策略认为， 在美国司法权力受钳制的背景下，特朗普政府可以一定程度"绕开"裁决： 5月22日，特朗普政府推动了"大而美减税法案"，以215票对214票的微弱优势在美国众议院通过。这一法案推出的背后反映的是美国"三权分立"的 宪政体制的受到挑战。在该法 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court has halted President Trump's tariff policy, which may lead to the administration exploring alternative legal avenues to impose tariffs [1][2]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Government Response - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled against Trump's tariff policy, stating that he overstepped his authority by imposing comprehensive tariffs on countries with trade surpluses with the U.S. [1] - Goldman Sachs described the court's decision as a "Nothingburger," suggesting that the Trump administration may utilize Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose tariffs while seeking time for further investigations under Section 301 [2][3]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Provisions - The Trump administration has several alternative legal provisions to impose tariffs, including Sections 122, 301, 338, and 232 of various trade laws [5][6]. - Section 122 allows for a rapid imposition of tariffs up to 15% without lengthy procedures, but it has a maximum duration of 150 days [6]. - Section 301 is a powerful tool that permits the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate unfair trade practices and impose unlimited tariffs, although investigations can take 12-18 months [7]. - Section 232 grants the president broad authority to impose tariffs on imports based on national security concerns, which has been upheld in legal challenges [8]. Group 3: Implications of the Court Ruling - The court ruling signifies a structural shift in U.S. tariff policy from unilateral executive action to a more bureaucratic and transparent process, increasing the time required for tariff actions [10]. - The loss of the IEEPA as a "tariff nuclear button" diminishes Trump's unilateral influence in trade negotiations, shifting focus to specific industries or unfair trade practices rather than broad tariffs [11]. - The ruling establishes a precedent that the executive branch cannot impose tariffs arbitrarily and must adhere to established legal procedures involving public input and congressional oversight [12].