"关税压力测试"系列 2026 年 02 月 23 日 IEEPA 关税被判违法，后续如何演绎？ —"关税压力测试"系列之十三 2026 年 2 月 20 日，美国最高法院投票裁定特朗普政府基于 IEEPA 征收的关税非法，包括对等关 税和芬太尼关税。未来，特朗普政府或如何应对，关税格局将产生哪些变化？ 一、美国最高法关税判决：IEEPA 关税被推翻，全面退款概率较低 最高法判定 IEEPA 关税违法的核心理由是：违背清晰授权原则及重大问题原则。被判违法的关税 措施包括：1)芬太尼关税，中国为 20%（其中 10%已在 11 月暂免）、加拿大 25%、墨西哥 25%； 2)全球对等关税，包括 10%的基准关税及国别附加关税。 关税判决实际执行时间或被延后至 3 月下旬至 4 月初。关税判决生效时间为 2 月 20 日，但生效 不等于立即执行。实际执行时间取决于最高法院递送判决文件时间（一般为判决后第 32 天，即 3 月 24 日），特朗普政府可在 25 日内申请复议，复议难以改变结果，但或提供更长的缓冲期。 IEEPA 关税全部退还的概率较低，但局部退税的概率较高。1）退税程序在法律上已被剥离，单独 执行。 ...

最高法院否决IEEPA关税的法律基础后，市场关注的焦点从"关税还在不在"转向"退不退款、怎么换法条、贸易框架协 议还算不算数"。 据央视新闻报道，美国最高法院当地时间2月20日裁定，特朗普政府援引《国际紧急经济权力法案》（IEEPA）对美国 进口商品加征关税"违法"。在随后记者会上，特朗普回应称将于当日签署行政令，依据《1974年贸易法》第122条实 施"10%全球统一关税"，并宣布开启多项所谓的301调查。 并非所有关税都受影响 据追风交易台消息，汇丰最新研报援引判决要点称，最高法院认定IEEPA并不授权总统以"紧急状态"为由对进口普遍征 税。瑞银在解读中补充，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨代表多数意见写道："IEEPA不授权总统征收关税。" 这意味着，2025年特朗普政府用IEEPA搭建的关税体系——先对加拿大、墨西哥加税，随后在2025年4月2日将"互惠/对 等关税"扩展至几乎所有贸易伙伴——核心法律支柱被抽走。 但并非所有关税都受影响。汇丰强调，本次裁决不影响已存在的： 232条款（国家安全、行业性关税） 301条款 201条款（保障措施，如2018年太阳能） 关税重构而不是推翻 瑞银认为，大多数IEEPA关 ...

最高法院否决IEEPA关税的法律基础后，市场关注的焦点从"关税还在不在"转向"退不退款、怎么换法条、贸易框架协 议还算不算数"。 据央视新闻报道，美国最高法院当地时间2月20日裁定，特朗普政府援引《国际紧急经济权力法案》（IEEPA）对美国 进口商品加征关税"违法"。在随后记者会上，特朗普回应称将于当日签署行政令，依据《1974年贸易法》第122条实 施"10%全球统一关税"，并宣布开启多项所谓的301调查。 并非所有关税都受影响 据追风交易台消息，汇丰最新研报援引判决要点称，最高法院认定IEEPA并不授权总统以"紧急状态"为由对进口普遍征 税。瑞银在解读中补充，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨代表多数意见写道："IEEPA不授权总统征收关税。" 这意味着，2025年特朗普政府用IEEPA搭建的关税体系——先对加拿大、墨西哥加税，随后在2025年4月2日将"互惠/对 等关税"扩展至几乎所有贸易伙伴——核心法律支柱被抽走。 但并非所有关税都受影响。汇丰强调，本次裁决不影响已存在的： 关税重构而不是推翻 瑞银认为，大多数IEEPA关税可以使用其他贸易授权进行重构，正如许多美国政府官员近几个月所提到的那样。 方案一：不寻求替 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on presidential tariff powers could significantly impact the market by the end of the year, with uncertainty surrounding tariffs persisting regardless of the court's decision [1] Group 1: Court's Stance and Market Reactions - The Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as the law does not explicitly mention tariffs [1] - Internal divisions among the justices are evident, with 4 justices likely opposing the government's stance, while 3 support it, and 2 are undecided [2] - Market expectations fluctuated during the hearings, with the probability of tariffs being upheld dropping from 40% to around 30% [2] Group 2: Economic Impact and Refund Procedures - Even if the court rules against the tariffs, the market should not expect an immediate policy reversal, as refund processes could take months and depend on further legal actions by importers [3] - As of September, approximately $89 billion in IEEPA tariffs had been collected, with projections suggesting this could rise to between $115 billion and $145 billion by the time of the court's ruling [3] - Experts warn that the cancellation of tariffs could lead to greater chaos, with potential for increased uncertainty and a significant rise in the U.S. fiscal deficit due to large refund amounts [3] Group 3: Alternative Legal Options for Tariffs - The Trump administration has multiple alternative legal tools to impose tariffs if the IEEPA is rejected, including provisions from the Trade Act of 1974 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 [4] - Goldman Sachs indicates that the government could quickly reimplement similar tariffs using these alternative laws, particularly against major trading partners [4] - The net impact on tariffs for major trading partners may be minimal, with actual tariff rates potentially decreasing by only about 1 percentage point [4]

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]