2026年2月20日 / 美国东部时间上午10:25 / CBS新闻
华盛顿—— 周五，美国最高法院裁定，总统特朗普无权根据联邦紧急状态权力法单方面对几乎所有国家征收大规模关税，这对总统标志性的经济政策造成了重大打击。
最高法院裁定，《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）并未授权总统征收关税。最高法院以6比3的投票结果作出裁决，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨代表法院宣读了意见。大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺、克拉伦斯·托马斯和塞缪尔·阿利托持异议。
罗伯茨写道：“《国际紧急经济权力法》中没有提及关税或关税。政府没有指出任何一部法律中，国会使用‘管制’一词来授权征税。直到现在，也没有任何一位总统将《国际紧急经济权力法》解读为赋予此类权力。”“我们在经济或外交事务方面并无特殊专长。我们唯一的立场，也是我们必须秉持的立场，是宪法第三条赋予我们的有限角色。履行这一角色，我们认定《国际紧急经济权力法》并未授权总统征收关税。”
法院维持了美国联邦巡回上诉法院的一项裁决，该裁决认定特朗普总统的关税非法。
围绕特朗普关税的法律之争，是最高法院首次评估其第二届任期政策的法律是非曲直。在法律程序推进期间，最高法院允许总统暂时执行许多计划，但此次裁定其全球关税非法，是他第二届任期内迄今为止最重大的一次失利。
特朗普的关税
尽管此次裁决限制了总统使用《国际紧急经济权力法》制定大规模关税的能力，但并未阻止他根据其他贸易授权征收关税。特朗普总统已依靠其他法律对铜、钢铁、铝及其他产品的进口征税。
关税是特朗普第二届任期经济议程的核心内容。总统利用征税威胁推动贸易伙伴谈判对美国更有利的贸易协定，并声称这些措施将促进国内制造业发展。
特朗普在裁决前声称，由于关税，“我们的国家在财政上，以及从国家安全角度来看，比以往任何时候都要强大得多，也更受尊重。”他还警告称，不利的裁决将迫使美国向进口商偿还巨额资金，“这将是一场彻底的混乱，我们的国家几乎不可能支付得起。”
周五上午，白宫记者等待进入总统与各州州长的会议，但裁决结果公布后不久，他们就被送回了新闻发布区。此次裁决发生在总统首次国情咨文演讲前四天，预计他将在演讲中吹嘘其第一年的主要成就。
最高法院审理的争议涉及总统去年通过一系列行政命令推出的两组关税。特朗普援引《国际紧急经济权力法》的紧急权力实施这些关税，称这是应对“持续存在的巨额贸易逆差”以及阻止非法芬太尼和其他毒品流入美国的必要措施。《国际紧急经济权力法》此前从未被用于征收关税。
第一组关税对几乎所有美国贸易伙伴设定了10%的初始基准税率，并对数十个国家征收更高的互惠税率。第二组关税针对中国、加拿大和墨西哥。
《国际紧急经济权力法》授权总统“管制……进口”以应对对国家安全、外交政策或美国经济的“任何异常和非凡威胁”。特朗普辩称，贸易不平衡和流入该国的芬太尼构成了此类威胁。
总统于去年2月和4月（他称之为“解放日”）宣布了进口税。此后，政府宣布与十多个国家和欧盟达成框架贸易协定，并表示正在与许多其他国家进行谈判。
两组小企业和12个州在两个不同的法院提起诉讼，认为《国际紧急经济权力法》不授权特朗普征收大规模关税。此后，三个下级法院裁定，总统无权根据《国际紧急经济权力法》单方面征收全球和与贩运相关的关税。
尽管下级法院失利，特朗普政府在诉讼移至最高法院期间仍继续收取进口税。总统还继续利用《国际紧急经济权力法》征收新关税或调整现有税率，包括对巴西某些商品征收40%的关税（尽管其中一些后来被取消），以及对印度进口商品征收25%的关税，以惩罚其进口俄罗斯石油。
财政部数据显示，2025财年美国关税收入达1950亿美元，1月份为280亿美元。
全国数十家企业提起诉讼，质疑这些关税的合法性。好市多（Costco）、Crocs和露华浓（Revlon）等大公司已诉诸法院，称它们正在寻求退还因总统政策而缴纳的进口关税全额退款。
特朗普和政府官员坚持认为，外国生产商承担了大部分关税。但纽约联邦储备银行本月早些时候发布的分析显示，去年近90%的关税负担落在了美国企业和消费者身上。纽约联邦储备银行发现，美国平均进口税率从2025年的不到3%跃升至13%。
凯瑟琳·沃森对本报道有贡献。
Supreme Court rules most of Trump tariffs illegal in major setback for economic agenda
February 20, 2026 / 10:25 AM EST / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled President Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every country under a federal emergency powers law, delivering a significant blow to the president’s signature economic policy.
The high court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court divided 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts delivering the opinion for the court. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
“IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power,” Roberts wrote. “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
The court upheld a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that ruled Mr. Trump’s tariffs were illegal.
The legal battle over Mr. Trump’s tariffs marked the first in which the Supreme Court evaluated the legal merits of one of his second-term policies. The high court has allowed the president to enforce many of his plans temporarily while legal proceedings moved forward, but its decision invalidating Mr. Trump’s global tariffs is so far the most significant loss of his second term.
Trump’s tariffs
While the ruling restricts the president’s ability to use IEEPA to set his sweeping duties, it does not prevent the president from imposing tariffs under different trade authorities. Mr. Trump has already relied on other laws to slap levies on copper, steel and aluminum imports, as well as other products.
Tariffs are a centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s economic agenda in his second term. The president has used the threat of levies to push trading partners to negotiate trade deals that are more favorable to the U.S. and has argued that they will help boost domestic manufacturing.
Mr. Trump claimed ahead of a decision that because of tariffs, “our Country is financially, AND FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT, FAR STRONGER AND MORE RESPECTED THAN EVER BEFORE.” He also warned that an adverse ruling would force the U.S. to pay back significant sums of money to importers, which would be “a complete mess, and almost impossible for our country to pay.”
Reporters at the White House were waiting to enter a meeting between the president and the nation’s governors on Friday morning, but were sent back to the press area moments after the decision came down. The ruling comes four days before the president’s first State of the Union address, where he is expected to tout the major accomplishments of his first year.
The dispute before the Supreme Court involved two sets of duties that the president rolled out through a series of executive orders last year. Mr. Trump invoked IEEPA’s emergency powers to impose the tariffs, which he said were necessary to respond to “large and persistent” trade deficits and to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl and other drugs into the U.S. IEEPA had not been previously used to impose tariffs.
The first set of tariffs set an initial baseline rate of 10% on nearly every U.S. trading partner, as well as higher reciprocal rates on dozens of countries. The second tranche of levies targeted China, Canada and Mexico.
IEEPA authorizes the president to “regulate … importation” to deal with “any unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy or the U.S. economy. Mr. Trump argued that trade imbalances and the fentanyl coming into the country constituted such a threat.
The president announced the import taxes last February and in April, on what he called “Liberation Day.” Since then, the administration has announced framework trade agreements with more than a dozen countries and the European Union, and has said it is negotiating with many other nations.
Two sets of small businesses and a group of 12 states filed lawsuits in two different courts arguing that IEEPA doesn’t authorize Mr. Trump’s sweeping tariffs. Three lower courts have since ruled that the president did not have the power to unilaterally impose the global and trafficking-related tariffs under IEEPA.
Despite the losses in the lower courts, the Trump administration has kept collecting the import taxes as the court fight moved to the Supreme Court. The president has also continued to turn to IEEPA to impose new tariffs or change existing rates, including hitting Brazil with 40% tariffs on certain goods, though some have since been removed, and imposing 25% levies on imports from India as punishment for importing Russian oil.
The U.S. generated $195 billion in tariff revenue in fiscal year 2025, according to the Treasury Department, and $28 billion in January.
Scores of businesses from across the country have filed lawsuits challenging the legality of the duties. Major companies like Costco, Crocs and Revlon that have turned to the courts and have said they are seeking full refunds of the levies they’ve paid on imports as a result of the president’s policies.
Mr. Trump and administration officials have maintained that foreign producers pay most of the tariffs. But an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released earlier this month found that nearly 90% of tariffs’ burden fell on U.S. companies and consumers last year. The New York Fed found that the average U.S. levy on imports jumped from less than 3% to 13% in 2025.
Kathryn Watson contributed to this report.
发表回复