特朗普在去年初上台后通过《国际紧急经济权力法》对多个贸易伙伴实施差别化关税政策，主要分为： 面向全球征收的10%"基准关税"；以应对毒品危机为由对加拿大、墨西哥和中国所有产品加征关税（芬 太尼关税）；税针对亚洲、欧盟和巴西等的对等关税。 2025年11月5日上午，最高法院就其合法性诉讼首次召集各方展开辩论。这场诉讼由数家美国小型进口 商，以及民主党人主政的多个州所主导。此前的几次审理，白宫方面均被判败诉。 美东时间1月6日，美国最高法院宣布，将在本周五（1月9日）就关税问题作出裁决。 奥巴马时期的美国副贸易代表John Veroneau此前表示，该案将考验最高法院能否坚守"重大问题原则"。 该原则是最高法在拜登时代确立的，主要内容为：行政机构不得在没有明确国会授权的情况下，擅自采 取对国家经济产生巨大影响的政策。 当天的庭辩期间，包括保守派与自由派在内的9位大法官都在一定程度上认为特朗普越权。包括首席大 法官在内的大多数意见对白宫通过宣布国家紧急状态来全面征收关税的做法持保留态度。 有分析指出，最终结果可能决定特朗普经济议程"基石"的命运，甚至改变美国经济和全球贸易走向，还 将使得本已严峻的联邦预算赤字状况进 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses President Trump's ongoing efforts to maintain his tariff policies, particularly the "reciprocal tariffs" and the legal challenges surrounding them [1][2] - The White House has recently adjusted the scope of the "reciprocal tariffs," excluding various agricultural products from the additional tariff list, effective from November 13 [1] - Trump has proposed the possibility of issuing $2,000 checks to many Americans as a form of tariff "dividend," contingent upon Congressional approval [1] Group 2 - The Trump administration imposed tariffs on products from Canada, Mexico, and China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), leading to legal challenges from affected U.S. businesses and states [2] - A previous court ruling stated that Trump lacked the authority to impose tariffs on multiple countries under IEEPA, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court [2] - The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision is expected to have significant implications for international trade and U.S. fiscal policy, potentially requiring the government to refund over $88 billion in tariffs if the ruling is unfavorable [2] Group 3 - The article outlines alternative legal frameworks, such as Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act, which could allow the administration to impose tariffs if the current policies are overturned [3][4] - Section 301 permits investigations into unfair trade practices and suggests unilateral sanctions, while Section 122 allows for tariffs up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days [4] - Despite these alternatives, they may face legal challenges and have limitations in terms of implementation speed and scope [4] Group 4 - The National Economic Council Director indicated that if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, the government may resort to using Sections 301 or 122 to reimpose tariffs [5] - The administration is also utilizing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose tariffs on metals and automobiles, which has drawn criticism from U.S. trade partners [5] - There are concerns that if IEEPA tariffs are deemed unconstitutional, Section 232 may become the fallback plan for the administration, affecting a significant portion of the manufacturing sector [5]

Core Points - The White House is gradually changing its tariff strategy in response to high domestic inflation and uncertainties following a Supreme Court tariff hearing [1] - The Trump administration is preparing a backup plan to impose tariffs unilaterally under Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act if "reciprocal tariffs" are overturned [1][3] - The Supreme Court is currently hearing lawsuits led by small importers and Democratic states, challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [3] Group 1 - The Trade Act Section 301 allows investigations into "unreasonable or unjust trade practices" and has been used over 130 times historically, with 35 investigations initiated post-1995 [1] - Section 122 of the Trade Act permits the President to impose tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days [3] - The Department of Commerce has initiated new investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, targeting industries such as metals and automobiles, with potential implications for a wide range of manufacturing sectors [3] Group 2 - The White House has recently adjusted the scope of "reciprocal tariffs," excluding various agricultural products such as coffee, bananas, and beef from additional tariffs [4] - The updated tariff exemptions and potential adjustments for "allied partners" have been released [4] - The changes took effect starting November 13 [5]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, raising concerns about the potential financial implications for the government and the future of U.S.-China trade relations [1][6]. Group 1: Legal and Political Implications - The Supreme Court's questioning indicates skepticism about the administration's authority to impose tariffs, emphasizing that such powers belong to Congress as per the U.S. Constitution [3][6]. - Chief Justice Roberts highlighted that tariffs are essentially taxes on Americans, which should be legislated by Congress, not unilaterally imposed by the executive branch [3][6]. - The legal challenge reflects a broader issue of executive overreach and the balance of power within the U.S. political system, with previous lower court rulings deeming the tariff policy illegal [6][8]. Group 2: Economic Consequences - Trump's claim that the government may owe over $20 trillion in refunds if tariffs are deemed illegal is exaggerated; actual potential refunds range from $50 billion to $200 billion, with collected tariffs amounting to only $174 billion as of September [4][6]. - The administration's reliance on tariffs to secure foreign investment agreements, totaling over $1.7 trillion, may collapse if the tariffs are ruled illegal, posing a significant risk to these economic commitments [4][6]. - The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has criticized the administration's claims about tariff revenues, suggesting that the actual income is likely only half or a third of what is being promoted [4][6]. Group 3: Strategic Responses - In contrast to the U.S. political turmoil, China has demonstrated strategic stability by signaling a willingness to ease tensions through dialogue and mutual concessions on tariffs [6][8]. - The ongoing legal battle over tariffs underscores the lack of domestic consensus on Trump's trade policies, with significant pushback from businesses and public dissatisfaction with economic conditions [6][8]. - The potential invalidation of the tariff policy could dismantle the narrative that tariffs are beneficial for the economy, leading to broader implications for the U.S. fiscal situation and capital markets [6][8].

Legal Analysis - The U.S. Supreme Court's debate on the legality of "reciprocal tariffs" shows a 3:6 ratio in favor of declaring them illegal, indicating a high probability of a ruling against them[2] - The main arguments for declaring the tariffs illegal include the assertion that tariff authority belongs to Congress and that the IEEPA was intended to limit presidential power, not expand it[2][11] - Three potential outcomes of the ruling are identified: a likely illegal ruling with delayed effect (45%-55% probability), partial illegality with possible allowance for fentanyl tariffs (20%-30% probability), and a low probability (10%-20%) of upholding the legality of reciprocal tariffs[17][18] Economic Implications - If reciprocal tariffs are deemed illegal, the U.S. tariff structure may decline by approximately 25%, with total tariff revenue potentially dropping from $1,959 billion to $1,554 billion[4][26][37] - Current tariff revenue composition shows reciprocal tariffs account for 45%, Section 301 tariffs for 18%, and Section 232 tariffs for 17%[4][26] - The effective tariff rate for the U.S. is currently 9.75%, with the highest rate on Chinese imports at 40.4%[4][32] Political Response - In response to a potential ruling against reciprocal tariffs, Trump may resort to existing tariff laws such as Sections 232, 301, and 338, but the likelihood of broad tax refunds is low due to legal constraints[3][22] - The probability of universal tax refunds is low, with refunds likely limited to specific plaintiffs rather than a blanket return to all importers[3][25] - Trump's proposal to distribute tariff revenues to citizens faces significant legislative hurdles, requiring Congressional approval[3][25]

Core Viewpoint - The Trump tariffs, initially aimed at protecting American manufacturing, have evolved into a significant fiscal revenue mechanism, raising concerns about their legality and implications for U.S. economic policy [1][4]. Group 1: Tariff Revenue and Economic Impact - The Trump administration has expanded tariffs not only on China but also on Europe, Mexico, and Vietnam, framing them as measures for national security and fair competition, while effectively acting as an "invisible tax" on American consumers [3][5]. - If the current tariff structure remains in place until mid-next year, the U.S. government could generate between $750 billion to $1 trillion in revenue, marking the largest tax increase in nearly two decades [3][5]. - The American Employers Federation estimates that U.S. businesses will incur over $82 billion in additional costs due to tariffs in 2024, leading many small manufacturers to raise prices or reduce production [5]. Group 2: Legal and Constitutional Challenges - The legality of the tariffs is under scrutiny, as the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, and the Trump administration's use of "emergency economic powers" to impose tariffs may violate this principle [5][7]. - Supreme Court justices have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the tariffs, suggesting that significant economic decisions should require explicit congressional authorization [5][7]. - If the courts determine that the tariffs are effectively taxes, it could trigger constitutional disputes and potentially require the government to refund up to $19.5 billion in collected revenue [5]. Group 3: Political and Diplomatic Implications - The perception of tariffs as a covert tax undermines the credibility of U.S. trade policy in international negotiations, as trade measures are increasingly viewed as revenue-generating tools rather than diplomatic instruments [6][7]. - The Trump administration faces a dilemma: maintaining that tariffs serve as trade tools necessitates proving their direct link to national security, while acknowledging their fiscal role risks being deemed unconstitutional [7]. - The situation illustrates a broader internal conflict regarding power, money, and constitutional limits, as tariffs transition from trade levers to fiscal instruments, complicating the administration's economic agenda [7].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is examining the legality of global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), raising questions about the boundaries of presidential economic authority [1][2] Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court hearing lasted two and a half hours, focusing on whether Trump overstepped the constitutional taxing authority granted to Congress [1] - Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that tariffs are essentially a tax on Americans, which is a core power of Congress, suggesting that significant economic actions by the president require explicit congressional authorization [1] - Some conservative justices argued that the president has inherent discretion in foreign affairs and national security matters, referencing a precedent from the Nixon era [1] Group 2: Government's Defense - The Trump administration defended the tariffs as a necessary measure to address a long-standing trade deficit, which they claim poses a national security threat [1] - Government lawyers warned that removing the tariffs could lead to aggressive trade retaliation from other nations, undermining U.S. economic and security standing [1] Group 3: Financial Implications - U.S. Customs data indicates that since February, the IEEPA tariffs have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue for the U.S. [2] - The outcome of the case could reshape the boundaries of presidential economic power and impact the global trade landscape [2]

Core Viewpoint - Goldman Sachs indicates that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding tariff rulings remains closely contested, with a ruling expected in December 2025 or January 2026. The firm believes that even an unfavorable ruling may not fundamentally alter the tariff landscape [1][2]. Group 1: Court Proceedings and Predictions - Goldman Sachs' chief economist Jan Hatzius' team reported that during the oral arguments on November 5, 2025, most justices expressed skepticism about the president's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), leading to a market probability adjustment for maintaining tariffs from 40% to around 30% [2][3]. - The firm predicts that even if the court rejects IEEPA tariffs, the Trump administration could still implement similar tariffs through other legal avenues, resulting in an actual tariff rate decrease of only about 1 percentage point [2][5]. Group 2: Current Tariff Impact and Future Scenarios - As of September, the government had collected approximately $89 billion in IEEPA tariffs, which is expected to rise to between $115 billion and $145 billion by the time of the court's ruling. The refund process for these tariffs could take several months, indicating that the economic impact of these tariffs will persist [5][6]. - Goldman Sachs notes that a court ruling does not equate to the end of tariffs, as the government has various alternative legal tools at its disposal to impose tariffs, including provisions from the Trade Act of 1974 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 [7][8]. Group 3: Judicial Dynamics and Key Justices - The internal dynamics of the court reveal a split, with four justices likely opposing the government and three supporting it, while two justices remain undecided. This indicates a highly competitive ruling process [2][6]. - Key swing votes are held by Justices Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts, with Barrett questioning the intent of Congress in granting broad tariff powers through IEEPA, and Roberts emphasizing that taxation is a core power of Congress, while acknowledging the importance of tariffs as a tool of foreign policy [6][7].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is debating the legality of the President's broad tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which has significant implications for presidential authority, congressional tax powers, and the economic fate of thousands of businesses [1][4][15] - The case has garnered widespread media attention, with reports highlighting skepticism and concerns among justices regarding the interpretation of IEEPA as a basis for universal tariff authority [1][4][11] Group 1: Background of the Case - The legal battle began in April 2025 when Learning Resources, an educational toy company, filed a lawsuit against the President's tariff policy due to rising import costs and squeezed profit margins [4] - Similar lawsuits were filed by V.O.S. Selections, a wine and spirits importer, questioning the legality of the President's broad tariff imposition under IEEPA [4][5] - The case escalated from the U.S. International Trade Court to the Federal Circuit Court, which ruled that the President lacked the authority to impose such extensive tariffs under IEEPA, prompting the government to appeal to the Supreme Court [4][5] Group 2: Legal Representation and Arguments - The government is represented by Solicitor General D. John Roberts, a highly regarded figure in the Supreme Court, while the opposing side includes former Solicitor General Neal Katyal, representing small businesses [8][9] - A coalition of state governments has also joined the plaintiffs, emphasizing the need for clear congressional authorization for significant actions in the sensitive area of tariffs [8][9] Group 3: Court Proceedings and Dynamics - The oral arguments on November 5 were extended to 80 minutes due to intense questioning from justices, lasting approximately two and a half hours [10] - Justices focused on whether IEEPA grants the President the authority to impose such broad and long-term tariffs, with discussions around the "major questions doctrine" and the historical context of tariff powers [11][12] Group 4: Potential Outcomes and Implications - Predictions for the Supreme Court's ruling include three main possibilities: a significant limitation of presidential power, a technical compromise acknowledging limited emergency powers, or a ruling in favor of the government's position [15][16] - The outcome will have profound implications for U.S. trade policy, affecting business costs, import prices, and the constitutional balance of power between the presidency and Congress [15][16]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of President Trump's extensive tariff policy, which could have significant implications for the global economy and serve as a critical test of presidential power [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of Trump's comprehensive tariff policy, with oral arguments lasting over two and a half hours [2][3]. - Conservative and liberal justices raised pointed questions about whether Trump can defend his tariff policy using a 50-year-old law, suggesting it may represent an expansion of executive power [2][6]. - If the plaintiffs win, many of Trump's tariff measures could be overturned, requiring the government to refund companies that have paid tariffs and potentially nullifying recent trade agreements [3][12]. Group 2: Constitutional Authority - The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to impose taxes and tariffs, with Chief Justice John Roberts indicating that the court may invoke the "major questions doctrine," requiring explicit congressional authorization for significant economic actions [6][11]. - The Trump administration argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the president to impose tariffs in response to national emergencies, but challengers contend that "regulation" does not encompass the power to levy tariffs [10][12]. - The Supreme Court has historically granted the president considerable discretion in foreign affairs, but there are concerns that this could undermine the separation of powers [11][12]. Group 3: Economic Implications - The tariffs imposed under Trump's policy have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue from February 4 to September 23 [12]. - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, it could lead to significant economic disruptions, including the potential for a "Great Depression-like economic collapse" and serious diplomatic repercussions [12][14]. - The government is exploring alternative legal avenues to maintain its tariff policies if the court rules unfavorably, although these alternatives may be less flexible [14].