特朗普推动的关税政策很快暴露出了问题。尽管他大力宣传所谓的对等关税，但在实施过程中，美国海关系统出现了严重故障，导致新加的关税无法正常征 收，政策执行层面几乎停滞。这一事件表明，关税政策的效果并不取决于总统的言辞，而是取决于海关系统是否能顺利运作。根据美国海关的通报，系统故 障持续了一段时间，很多已经到达或正在清关的商品无法顺利完成征税程序，涉及的金额非常庞大。这意味着特朗普在宣布加税时，实际上美国处于一种想 收却收不到的困境中。 这种故障并非偶发事件，而是长期存在的技术问题的集中爆发。作为世界上最大的进口国之一，美国的商品种类繁多，来源复杂，每一次关税政策变动都需 要海关系统的及时响应。如果缺乏技术支持和足够的人员配合，再强硬的政策也只能停留在纸面上。特朗普推动关税升级时，美国海关长期面临着裁员、预 算削减等问题，基层执行部门人手短缺，系统设备老旧。原本已经压力山大的海关，面对突如其来的大规模关税调整，混乱也是难以避免的。 特朗普的关税政策也暴露了其执行中的不稳定性。一方面宣布加税，另一方面却可能随时被叫停或推迟。这种政策的不确定性让跨国公司在调整长期供应链 时面临极大困难。特朗普曾推动对中国部分商品加征高 ...

针对裁决前景，英国杜伦大学法学院副院长、跨国法教授兼全球政策研究所联合主任杜明对第一财经记 者表示，若无意外，仍维持特朗普关税政策大概率被判非法的判断，即其大部分政策都将是"与规则不 符"的。 根据美国海关和边境保护局的数据，如果美国最高法院裁定特朗普政府根据《国际紧急经济权力法》 （IEEPA）征收的关税非法，特朗普政府可能面临向进口商退还超过1335亿美元关税的风险。 本周宣判 特朗普政府2025年1月上台后援引IEEPA，以不经过国会批准、直接颁布行政令的方式出台一系列加征 关税措施。 在美国联邦巡回上诉法院和美国国际贸易法院分别裁定现政府一揽子关税政策违法后，特朗普政府向最 高法院提出上诉，目前案件正在最高法院审理。 目前，特朗普政府援引IEEPA所开征的关税包括所谓"对等关税"和芬太尼关税等。 据央视报道，当地时间1月6日，美国最高法院宣布，将在本周五（9日）就关税问题作出裁决。 具体而言，当前，美国最高法院已将周五定为裁决日，据悉法官们将于当地时间9日上午10点开庭时宣 布可能作出的裁决。 如果届时美国最高法院就关税问题作出不利于特朗普政府的裁决，被认为将削弱特朗普政府标志性的经 济政策，并成为美 ...

美国政府也曾多次敦促高院尽快下达裁决。美国财长贝森特曾担忧，如果美国高院等到密集发布裁决的 6月才宣判，且结果对美国政府不利，届时积累的关税数字可能"造成重大混乱"。官方数据显示，2025 年美国政府关税收入超过2000亿美元。 虽然美国高院的大法官以保守派居多，但在去年11月的口头辩论中，多名保守派和所有自由派大法官都 对《国际紧急经济权力法案》是否赋予总统广泛征收关税的权力表示怀疑。 顺便一提，去年11月开完庭后，知名预测市场Polymarket对特朗普打赢官司的预测概率跳水至20%区 间，维持至今。 从时间线上看，去年5月28日，美国国际贸易法院一致裁决特朗普政府的"对等关税"超越其法定权 限，"芬太尼关税"所适用的法律依据错误，禁止执行上述关税措施；同年8月29日，美国联邦巡回上诉 法院维持下级法院关于关税违法的实体判决。特朗普政府随后上诉至美国高院。 智通财经1月7日讯(编辑 史正丞)综合央视新闻等媒体报道，美国高院的日程表显示，1月9日被列为意见 发布日。这也意味着本周五成为特朗普关税案宣判的最早时间节点。 需要说明的是，美国高院从来不会提前宣布将对哪些案件发布判决。到华盛顿时间本周五早10点(北 ...

（来源：美国高院） 需要说明的是，美国高院从来不会提前宣布将对哪些案件发布判决。到华盛顿时间本周五早10点（北京 时间晚11点）美国大法官们集体亮相时，可能会对所有已辩论的案件发布裁决。不过鉴于美国高院已经 同意加速审理关税案，外界对本周五的期待不无道理。 智通财经1月7日讯（编辑 史正丞）综合央视新闻等媒体报道，美国高院的日程表显示，1月9日被列为 意见发布日。这也意味着本周五成为特朗普关税案宣判的最早时间节点。 （来源：Polymarket） 从时间线上看，去年5月28日，美国国际贸易法院一致裁决特朗普政府的"对等关税"超越其法定权 限，"芬太尼关税"所适用的法律依据错误，禁止执行上述关税措施；同年8月29日，美国联邦巡回上诉 法院维持下级法院关于关税违法的实体判决。特朗普政府随后上诉至美国高院。 本案的争议焦点在于，特朗普以1977年《国际紧急经济权力法案》（IEEPA）宣布的"国家安全紧急状 态"来征收所谓的"对等关税"、"芬太尼关税"是否违法。 虽然美国高院的大法官以保守派居多，但在去年11月的口头辩论中，多名保守派和所有自由派大法官都 对《国际紧急经济权力法案》是否赋予总统广泛征收关税的权力表示怀 ...

Market Performance - A-shares collectively retreated, with the Shanghai Composite Index closing down 0.81% at 3954.79 points, the Shenzhen Component down 1.14%, and the ChiNext Index down 2.31%[1] - The Hong Kong Hang Seng Index fell 1.43% to 25906.65 points, with the Hang Seng Tech Index down 2.37% and the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index down 1.91%[1] - The total market turnover in Hong Kong decreased to 257.613 billion HKD[1] Economic Indicators - In October, the sales revenue of China's top 100 real estate companies dropped by over 41.9% year-on-year, amounting to 253 billion RMB (approximately 35.6 billion USD)[12] - The U.S. stock indices showed slight gains, with the Dow Jones up 0.09%, S&P 500 up 0.26%, and Nasdaq up 0.61%[1] Trade Relations - U.S. President Trump indicated willingness to eliminate all tariffs related to fentanyl if China takes strict measures against its export[12] - The EU is reportedly considering a new trade measure called "physical tariffs" to ensure the supply of critical raw materials from China[12] Sector Performance - Energy and metals sectors showed gains, while pharmaceutical stocks performed strongly against the market trend[1] - The overall decline in the real estate sector reflects ongoing challenges in the Chinese housing market, which has been struggling for over four years[12]

Core Viewpoint - China expresses sympathy for the American people affected by the fentanyl crisis and calls for the U.S. to create necessary conditions for cooperation [1] Group 1: China's Position on Drug Control - China maintains a consistent and clear stance on drug control, being one of the countries with the most stringent regulations and the highest number of controlled substances [1] - The Chinese government has a strong record in drug prohibition and has previously provided assistance to the U.S. regarding the fentanyl issue, achieving positive results [1] Group 2: Call for Cooperation - China is open to continuing cooperation with the U.S. on the fentanyl crisis and urges the U.S. to take practical actions to facilitate this collaboration [1]

Core Points - U.S. companies are urging the Supreme Court to uphold lower court rulings that deemed tariffs imposed by the Trump administration as illegal taxes on American businesses [1][3] - The legal basis for these tariffs, invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is being challenged as an overreach of presidential authority [4][5] Group 1: Legal Challenges - Seven companies and several states are contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, claiming they create unprecedented tax burdens [3] - The IEEPA allows the president to take economic control measures during a national emergency, but its application for tariffs is disputed [3][4] - The plaintiffs argue that IEEPA does not grant the president the unilateral power to impose tariffs, as it only allows for actions like freezing foreign assets [4][6] Group 2: Economic Impact - The tariffs are expected to lead to significant financial strain on small businesses, with claims that they could result in bankruptcies and an annual loss of at least $1,000 per average American [5][6] - The unpredictability of tariff changes is disrupting supply chains and harming relationships between businesses and their suppliers and customers [6] - Learning Resources claims that the tariffs could lead to a tax increase of over $3 trillion for American taxpayers over the next decade [6] Group 3: Court Proceedings - The Supreme Court is set to hear the case on November 5, with expectations that it will uphold the lower court's ruling against the legality of the tariffs [2][3] - The plaintiffs' briefs submitted to the court emphasize that tariffs fall under the constitutional authority of Congress, not the president [3][4] - The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision will determine the future of the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" and "fentanyl tariffs" [6][7]

Revenue and Tax Rate Insights - U.S. tariff revenue surged to $144.4 billion in the first eight months of 2025, 2.8 times higher than the same period last year, making it the fourth largest source of federal revenue at 4.0%[12] - The average tariff rate increased from 2.2% in January to 8.9% in June 2025, reflecting a significant rise driven by higher tariff rates[16] Trade Partner Analysis - The actual average tariff rate on imports from China reached 37.4% in June 2025, up 26.5 percentage points from January, with a peak of 45.6% in May[27] - U.S. imports from China fell by 18.9% and exports by 20.2% in the first seven months of 2025, indicating a significant decline in trade volume[28] Trade Dynamics - U.S. imports grew by 10.7% and exports by 4.8% year-on-year in the first seven months of 2025, while the trade deficit expanded by 21.3%[27] - The U.S. reliance on Chinese imports decreased, with imports from China constituting 9.4% of total U.S. imports, down 3.4 percentage points year-on-year[5] Product-Specific Tariff Changes - Tariff rates on labor-intensive goods, such as toys and shoes, increased significantly, with rates rising by 24.2 and 13.1 percentage points respectively[37] - The "232 tariffs" on steel and aluminum products saw rates increase from 25% to 50%, leading to substantial hikes in actual tariff rates for these categories[38]

Core Points - The Trump administration continues to utilize import tariffs to revitalize U.S. manufacturing and strengthen national security [1][4] - New tariffs include a 10% tax on imported softwood lumber and a 25% tax on imported cabinets and wood products, effective from October 14, with some rates increasing on January 1 [1] - The increase in tariffs is expected to raise costs in the residential construction and renovation sectors, exacerbating housing affordability issues for average Americans [1] - Approximately 30% of the softwood used in the U.S. comes from Canada, which faces a 14.5% countervailing and anti-dumping duty [1] Industry Insights - The new tariffs are part of a broader strategy to restructure domestic supply chains, although domestic lumber production may not meet the immediate demands of builders [4] - There is a noted generational gap in interest towards manufacturing jobs, with younger individuals preferring careers in fields like social media and fashion design [4] - The latest tariff measures stem from an investigation initiated by the U.S. Department of Commerce under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows for tariffs based on national security concerns [4][5] Legislative Context - The U.S. Department of Commerce has also launched new investigations into imports of robots, industrial machinery, and medical devices under the same legal framework [5] - The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the President to impose tariffs without stringent requirements to prove national security concerns, which has been a focal point in recent tariff implementations [5] - The legality of the White House's invocation of IEEPA is set to be debated in the Supreme Court on November 5 [5]

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the "V.O.S. Selections v. Trump" case in the first week of November, indicating a swift resolution to the matter [1][3] - The case arises after the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most tariffs imposed by the Trump administration were illegal, leading the White House to request expedited review [1][4] - If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the average effective tariff rate of 16.3% could be reduced by at least half, potentially resulting in the refund of hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs [1][5] Legal Context - The Trump administration's tariffs are claimed to be authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not explicitly grant the power to impose tariffs [4] - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that the IEEPA does not authorize such broad tariffs, emphasizing that the Constitution grants Congress the power to set tariffs, not the President [4] Financial Implications - U.S. Treasury Secretary indicated that if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs illegal, the government may have to refund about half of the tariffs collected, which would be a significant financial burden [5] - As of August 12, the U.S. had collected $142 billion in tariff revenue for the fiscal year [5] Case Developments - The Court of Appeals upheld parts of the lower court's ruling but sent back the issue of a nationwide permanent injunction for further review, ensuring judicial authority is not overstepped [5] - The case reflects the ongoing tension between executive power and legislative authority regarding tariff imposition [4][5] Stakeholder Reactions - Legal representatives for companies affected by the tariffs are advocating for the protection of small businesses and adherence to the rule of law in light of what they describe as excessive tariff actions [6]