美国的贸易政策可能自春季以来看似趋于平静，但最高法院预计将很快裁定总统唐纳德·特朗普依据1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》(IEEPA)征收的关税中约一半是否合法；此前已有三家法院认定这些关税违法。政府将贸易逆差与芬太尼流入宣布为“国家紧急状态”，并据此主张总统可自行设定关税。
若关税被推翻，政府可能改用其他更繁琐的法律权限继续对进口征税，使白宫达成的贸易“协议”动摇；即便总体关税更低，不确定性与复杂性也会增加。若法院很可能要求向被违法收费的进口商退款，美国经济或获得约相当于GDP的0.5%的意外财政刺激。
关键的数字与先例凸显文本与权力边界：宪法将征收关税权力赋予国会，而IEEPA甚至未出现“tariff”一词，仅允许总统“regulate”进口。1971年理查德·尼克松曾以类似权限实施近乎全面的10%关税约四个月，随后国会在1974年通过《贸易法》为关税权设定期限与程序；而特朗普的关税（含其他法律下的关税）预计十年筹集2.5万亿美元，主要由美国企业支付并多转嫁给消费者，这使“重大问题原则”的一致性面临压力。
America’s trade policy may have seemed calmer since spring, but the Supreme Court is expected to rule imminently on whether roughly half of President Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are legal; three courts have already found them unlawful. The administration labels the trade deficit and fentanyl inflows “national emergencies” and argues that this lets the president set tariffs at will.
If the tariffs are struck down, the administration may pivot to other, more fiddly legal authorities to tax imports, shaking White House trade “deals”; even if overall tariffs fall, uncertainty and complexity would rise. If the Court also orders refunds to importers unlawfully charged, the economy could get an unplanned fiscal stimulus of about 0.5% of GDP.
The numeric and historical markers sharpen the core boundary: the Constitution assigns tariff-setting to Congress, and IEEPA does not even contain the word “tariff,” only allowing the president to “regulate” imports. Richard Nixon used similar authority for a near-blanket 10% tariff for about four months in 1971, after which Congress passed the 1974 Trade Act with time limits and procedures; meanwhile Trump’s tariffs (including those under other laws) are projected to raise $2.5trn over a decade, paid largely by American firms and passed on to consumers, putting major-questions doctrine consistency under strain.
Source: America’s Supreme Court should strike down Donald Trump’s tariffs
Subtitle: The judges’ credibility is at stake
Dateline: 12月 11, 2025 07:26 上午