Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled against President Trump's tariff policy, stating that he overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs on countries with trade surpluses with the U.S. This ruling challenges the legality of the tariffs and emphasizes the constitutional power of Congress in regulating trade [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Challenge and Court Ruling - The U.S. International Trade Court's ruling on May 28, 2023, blocked Trump's tariff policy, asserting that the President does not have the authority to impose broad tariffs without Congressional approval [2][3]. - The lawsuit was initiated by a coalition of 12 states, arguing that Trump's tariff policy was an unlawful exercise of power [2]. - The court's decision undermines Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a legal basis for imposing tariffs, which could lead to the cancellation of tariffs imposed under this act [2][3]. Group 2: Implications for Trade Policy - The ruling is expected to significantly impact the Trump administration's trade agenda, potentially limiting its ability to use tariffs as a tool for trade protectionism [3][6]. - The decision may embolden other countries in their negotiations with the U.S., as it strengthens their position against U.S. trade pressures [3][9]. - The ruling could lead to a reassessment of U.S. trade policies, as domestic pressures from affected industries and political divisions grow [9][10]. Group 3: Market Reactions - Following the court's decision, there was a notable market reaction, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures rising over 1%, indicating optimism regarding a potential easing of trade tensions [7][8]. - The ruling is likely to influence sectors such as technology and industrials, which may see gains, while defense and domestic steel industries could experience pullbacks [8]. - The overall market sentiment reflects a belief that the tariff policies may become more moderate in the future, despite ongoing uncertainties [9].

文 | 赵伟、陈达飞、赵宇、李欣越 联系人 | 赵宇 报告正文 5月29日，美国国际贸易法庭裁决特朗普依据《国际紧急经济权力法》(IEEPA)加征关税的行为违法，美国贸易战的合法性面临哪些挑战？ 特朗普能否拒绝执行？ 从裁决书下发时刻起，根据《行政程序法》，前期加征关税的行政命令已经失效；关税应当被立即停收。裁决中命令政府部门10个日 历日内发布必要的行政命令，以执行永久禁令。即便这一行政命令未颁布，理论上关税也应立刻被取消，否则可视为藐视法庭。 谁是起诉方？ 此次判决是两个起诉的合并审理。一是12 个州民主党籍总检察长联名（俄勒冈州领衔）起诉特朗普政府；二是由非营利组织自由司法中心代理 的5家进口商企业起诉特朗普，包括V.O.S. Selections(酒类进口)、Genova Pipe(塑料管材)等。 判决理由是什么？ 一是特朗普的关税超出IEEPA授权，法院认为总统绕过《1974贸易法》直接使用IEEPA，属于越权，IEEPA未允许总统无限制设定关税税 率；二是以芬太尼与移民问题为由征收关税不符合IEEPA法定条件，关税与打击芬太尼、移民问题之间缺乏合理关联。 IEEPA有何争议？ 一是IEEPA授予总 ...

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。 值得一提的是，相比"万能关税"（1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》IEEPA），这些条款均面临更严格的国会或法院审查，并且启动过程需要更长时间，至 少需要数周甚至几个月，而且其他条款对征收幅度和持续时限有一定限制。 高盛认为，目前看来政府在接下来的几个月内难以对每个美国贸易伙伴完成301调查。如果法庭对IEEPA授权下关税裁决继续生效，这可能意味着与美国 存在较小贸易顺差的国家在150天期限满后不会面临基准关税。 "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 ...