2026-02-20T15:01:37.449Z / 路透社
LIVE
最后更新：4分钟前
美国最高法院裁定反对特朗普的关税政策
作者：凯莉·麦克莱伦、克里斯蒂娜·阿纳格诺斯托普洛斯、纳塔萨·班萨吉和瓦内萨·巴林泰克
节点运行失败
图片说明：2026年1月20日，美国华盛顿特区最高法院。路透社/内森·霍华德 [在路透社连接上许可此内容，新标签页打开]
摘要
发生了什么？
- 美国最高法院裁定反对唐纳德·特朗普总统的关税政策
- 白宫尚未发表评论
- 特朗普几乎对所有外国贸易伙伴都征收了关税
- 下级法院也裁定特朗普越权行事
- 特朗普曾表示，关税使美国在财政上更加强大
- 视频观看困难？帖子中的内容取决于您的Cookie设置
22分钟前 15:10 UTC
置顶
作者：本·威尔士
争议关税“显然合法”，卡瓦诺写道
4分钟前 15:28 UTC
作者：约翰·克鲁泽
图片说明：2025年3月12日，华盛顿特区的卡瓦诺。路透社/利亚·米勒
在书面异议中，保守派大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺表示，《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）的文本以及历史和先前的最高法院裁决支持特朗普政府的立场。
“与配额和禁运一样，关税是调节进口的传统且常用工具，”卡瓦诺写道，他的异议意见得到了同为保守派的大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯和塞缪尔·阿利托的支持。
“这里有争议的关税可能是也可能不是明智的政策，”卡瓦诺补充道。
“但就文本、历史和先例而言，它们显然是合法的。我恭敬地表示异议。”
反应
“对每一个目睹食品杂货账单上涨的工薪家庭来说是一场胜利”
6分钟前 15:25 UTC
作者：安德里亚·沙拉尔
拉丁裔主导的公民参与组织“Somos Votantes”的创始人兼主席梅丽莎·莫拉莱斯称，这一裁决是对因关税导致物价上涨而深受其害的家庭的胜利。
“特朗普试图制造紧急状态来为剥削辛勤工作的家庭找借口，而这个国家的最高法庭说不。这对每一个目睹食品杂货账单上涨、汽车付款激增、工资不足以维持生活的工薪家庭来说是一场胜利，这一切都源于一个人的鲁莽经济议程，”莫拉莱斯在一份声明中表示。
根据无党派皮尤研究中心的数据，西班牙裔是美国最大的少数族裔，约占人口的五分之一。2024年，特朗普获得了48%的西班牙裔选民支持，这一比例超过了历史上任何一位共和党总统候选人，而2020年他获得的西班牙裔选民支持率为36%。
但皮尤在11月对5000多名拉丁裔选民进行的调查显示，特朗普在2024年支持他的选民中的支持率下降了12个百分点。
IEEPA相关知识
9分钟前 15:23 UTC
作者：威尔·邓纳姆
为了实施本案争议中的关税，特朗普援引了1977年国会通过的一项法律，该法律在国家紧急状态下赋予总统额外权力。
特朗普是首位援引该法规征收关税的总统。过去，该法规常被用于对对手实施惩罚性经济制裁。
该法律被称为《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA），在宣布国家紧急状态时，赋予总统广泛的权力来规范各种经济交易。
特朗普将美国贸易逆差视为国家紧急状态。自1975年以来，美国每年都存在贸易逆差。
特朗普还援引美国芬太尼（一种常被滥用的止痛药）过量问题作为国家紧急状态的理由。
特朗普现在有什么选择？
12分钟前 15:20 UTC
作者：安德鲁·钟
图片说明：2025年4月2日，华盛顿特区白宫的特朗普。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
在最高法院于11月听取本案辩论后，特朗普表示，如果法院裁定对他不利，他将考虑替代方案，告诉记者“我们将不得不制定一个‘第二方案’”。
财政部长斯科特·贝森特和其他政府官员表示，美国将援引其他法律依据，尽可能保留特朗普的关税。
其中包括一项允许对威胁美国国家安全的进口商品征收关税的法律条款，以及一项允许对美国贸易代表办公室认定对美国出口商采取不公平贸易做法的贸易伙伴实施包括关税在内的报复性措施的法律条款。
特朗普“必须指出明确的国会授权”，罗伯茨写道
16分钟前 15:16 UTC
作者：约翰·克鲁泽
图片说明：2025年3月4日，华盛顿特区的罗伯茨。温·麦克纳梅/路透社池
最高法院的裁决由首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨撰写。
罗伯茨引用先前的最高法院裁决写道：“总统必须‘指出明确的国会授权’来证明他声称的征收关税的非凡权力是合理的，”并补充道：“他做不到。”
他写道，如果国会打算让《国际紧急经济权力法》赋予总统“独特且非凡的征收关税的权力，它会明确地这样做——就像在其他关税法规中一贯做的那样。”
“‘调节……进口’的权力并不能填补这一空白，”罗伯茨写道，引用了特朗普声称用来证明其大规模关税政策合法性的法规文本。
回顾：关税案如何提交至最高法院
20分钟前 15:12 UTC
作者：威尔·邓纳姆
图片说明：2025年11月5日，华盛顿最高法院外，一名抗议者举着标语。路透社/内森·霍华德
最高法院的诉讼包括三起独立的诉讼，为了口头辩论而合并审理。
其中一项诉讼由一家拥有约500名员工的家族玩具公司“Learning Resources”提起。
另一项诉讼由公益律师事务所“Liberty Justice Center”代表包括葡萄酒经销商V.O.S. Selections在内的小型企业提起。
第三起诉讼由12个美国州提起：亚利桑那州、科罗拉多州、康涅狄格州、特拉华州、伊利诺伊州、缅因州、明尼苏达州、内华达州、新墨西哥州、纽约州、俄勒冈州和佛蒙特州。
在下级法院裁定特朗普根据仅用于国家紧急状态的法律征收关税越权后，此案提交至最高法院。
在联邦巡回上诉法院和华盛顿特区美国地区法官鲁道夫·孔特雷拉斯裁定对特朗普不利后，特朗普政府向美国最高司法机构提起上诉。
我们对裁决的了解
22分钟前 15:10 UTC
作者：安德鲁·钟
最高法院以6-3的裁决支持下级法院的决定，即这位共和党总统对这项1977年法律的使用越权。
支持特朗普关税政策的三位大法官是布雷特·卡瓦诺、塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯。
最高法院在对受关税影响的企业和12个美国州（其中大多数由民主党治理）的法律挑战中得出了这一结论，这些州反对特朗普前所未有的使用该法律单方面征收进口税。
涉及多少资金？
24分钟前 15:08 UTC
作者：大卫·劳德尔
特朗普政府自12月14日起未提供关税征收数据。
但宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院预算模型的经济学家周五估计，根据《国际紧急经济权力法》，特朗普关税的征收金额超过1750亿美元。
如果最高法院裁定基于《国际紧急经济权力法》的关税非法，这笔钱可能需要退还。
反应
白宫对裁决暂无立即评论
25分钟前 15:07 UTC
作者：安德里亚·沙拉尔
反应
裁决后美国股市指数上涨
27分钟前 15:05 UTC
美国东部时间上午10:02：
- 道琼斯工业平均指数上涨207.03点，涨幅0.42%，达到49,602.19点
- 标准普尔500指数上涨33.44点，涨幅0.52%，达到6,895.33点
- 纳斯达克综合指数上涨153.93点，涨幅0.68%，达到22,836.66点
特朗普实施关税的法律依据是什么？
28分钟前 15:04 UTC
图片说明：2025年4月2日，华盛顿特区白宫玫瑰园，特朗普就关税发表讲话。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
在本案辩论期间，保守派和自由派大法官似乎对关税的合法性表示怀疑，这些关税是特朗普援引1977年旨在应对国家紧急状态的法律而征收的。
特朗普政府正在对下级法院裁定他越权的判决提出上诉。
特朗普援引《国际紧急经济权力法》对来自个别国家（几乎所有外国贸易伙伴）的商品征收所谓的“互惠”关税，以应对他所谓的与美国贸易逆差相关的国家紧急状态。
他援引同样的法律对中国、加拿大和墨西哥征收关税，理由是芬太尼和非法药物涌入美国构成国家紧急状态。
突发
最高法院裁定反对根据联邦紧急状态法律颁布的特朗普关税
30分钟前 15:02 UTC
突发
最高法院就特朗普关税做出裁决
31分钟前 15:01 UTC
美国最高法院刚刚就唐纳德·特朗普总统关税政策的合法性发布了备受期待的裁决。
此案标志着对总统权力的重大考验，并对世界经济产生深远影响。
裁决刚刚公布，我们的记者正在梳理细节。
请继续关注我们，我们将为您带来所有您需要了解的信息，以及反应和分析。
31分钟前 15:01 UTC
为尊重您的隐私，由于您当前的Cookie偏好设置，本网站上的某些内容可能不可见。通过社交媒体插件和其他服务提供的内容可能会设置非必要Cookie、广告和其他跟踪技术。要启用所有内容，您可能需要更新您的Cookie偏好设置。您可以通过点击桌面页脚中的“管理Cookie”链接或在应用中点击“菜单”>“支持与法律”>“管理个人数据”来管理您的Cookie偏好设置。
我们的标准：路透社信托原则。[在新标签页中打开]
SCOTUS Live: US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs
2026-02-20T15:01:37.449Z / Reuters
LIVE
Last updated 4 mins ago
SCOTUS Live: US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs
By Kylie MacLellan, Christina Anagnostopoulos, Natasa Bansagi and Vanessa Balintec
节点运行失败
FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., January 20, 2026. REUTERS/Nathan Howard [License this content on Reuters Connect, opens new tab]
Summary
What’s happening?
- US Supreme Court rules against President Donald Trump’s tariffs
- The White House has not yet commented
- Trump hit nearly every foreign trading partner with tariffs
- Lower courts had also ruled Trump exceeded his authority
- Trump has said tariffs have made the US stronger financially
- Trouble viewing video? Content in posts depends on your cookie settings
22 minutes ago
15:10 UTC
Pinned
By
Ben Welsh
Tariffs at issue are ‘clearly lawful,’ Kavanaugh writes
4 minutes ago
15:28 UTC
By
John Kruzel
FILE PHOTO: Kavanaugh in Washington, D.C., March 12, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis
In a written dissent, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that IEEPA’s text, as well as history and prior Supreme Court rulings, supported the Trump administration’s position.
“Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” wrote Kavanaugh, whose dissenting opinion was joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy,” Kavanaugh added.
“But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful. I respectfully dissent.”
Reaction
‘A victory for every working family who watched their grocery bills climb’
6 minutes ago
15:25 UTC
By
Andrea Shalal
Melissa Morales, founder and president of Somos Votantes, a Latino-led civic engagement group, called the ruling a victory for families hit hard by higher prices caused by the tariffs.
“Trump tried to manufacture an emergency to justify picking the pockets of hardworking families, and the highest court in the land said no. This is a victory for every working family who watched their grocery bills climb, their car payments spike, and their paychecks fall short because of one man’s reckless economic agenda,” Morales said in a statement.
Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the U.S., accounting for about a fifth of the population. Trump received 48% of the Hispanic vote in 2024 – more than any Republican presidential candidate in history – up from the 36% share he garnered in 2020, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
But a November survey of more than 5,000 Latino voters by Pew showed Trump is down 12 percentage points among those who backed him in 2024.
What to know about the IEEPA
9 minutes ago
15:23 UTC
By
Will Dunham
To impose the tariffs at issue in the case,Trump invoked a 1977 law passed by Congress that gives a president extra powers in the event of a national emergency.
Trump was the first president to invoke this statute to impose tariffs. In the past, it has often been used to apply punitive economic sanctions to adversaries.
Known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, the law gives a president broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions when a national emergency is declared.
Trump deemed the U.S. trade deficit a national emergency. The United States has run trade deficits every year since 1975.
Trump also cited U.S. overdoses of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl as a national emergency.
What are Trump’s options now?
12 minutes ago
15:20 UTC
By
Andrew Chung
FILE PHOTO: Trump at the White House in Washington, D.C., April 2, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November, Trump said he would consider alternatives if it ruled against him on tariffs, telling reporters that “we’ll have to develop a ‘game two’ plan.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other administration officials said the United States would invoke other legal justifications to retain as many of Trump’s tariffs as possible.
Among others, these include a statutory provision that permits tariffs on imported goods that threaten U.S. national security and another that allows retaliatory actions including tariffs against trading partners that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative determines have used unfair trade practices against American exporters.
Trump ‘must point to clear congressional authorization,’ Roberts writes
16 minutes ago
15:16 UTC
By
John Kruzel
FILE PHOTO: Roberts in Washington, D.C., March 04, 2025, Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS
The justices’ ruling was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts, citing a prior Supreme Court ruling, wrote that “the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,” adding: “He cannot.”
He wrote that if Congress had intended IEEPA to bestow on the president “the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly — as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”
“The power to ‘regulate . . . importation’ does not fill that void,” Roberts wrote, quoting the statute’s text that Trump claimed had justified his sweeping tariffs.
Recap: How the tariffs case got to the Supreme Court
20 minutes ago
15:12 UTC
By
Will Dunham
FILE PHOTO: A protester holds a sign outside the Supreme Court in Washington, November 5, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
The litigation at the Supreme Court consisted of three separate lawsuits, which were consolidated for purposes of oral arguments.
One of the challenges was brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources, which has about 500 employees.
Another was brought by the Liberty Justice Center, a public interest law firm, on behalf of a group of small businesses including a wine distributor called V.O.S. Selections.
The third case was filed by 12 U.S. states: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,Oregon and Vermont.
The case reached the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the tariffs under a law meant for use only in national emergencies.
The Trump administration appealed to the top U.S. judicial body after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Washington-based U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled against him.
What we know about the ruling
22 minutes ago
15:10 UTC
By
Andrew Chung
The Supreme Court justices, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld a lower court’s decision that the Republican president’s use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority.
The three justices who ruled for Trump’s tariffs were Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
The Supreme Court reached its conclusion in a legal challenge by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-governed, against Trump’s unprecedented use of this law to unilaterally impose the import taxes.
How much money is at stake?
24 minutes ago
15:08 UTC
By
David Lawder
Trump’s administration has not provided tariffs collection data since December 14.
But Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated on Friday that the amount collected in Trump’s tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act stood at more than $175 billion.
That amount likely would need to be refunded with a Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs.
Reaction
The White House has no immediate comment on the ruling
25 minutes ago
15:07 UTC
By
Andrea Shalal
Reaction
US stock indexes rise after ruling
27 minutes ago
15:05 UTC
At 10:02 a.m. ET:
- The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 207.03 points, or 0.42%, to 49,602.19
- The S&P 500 gained 33.44 points, or 0.52%, to 6,895.33
- The Nasdaq Composite gained 153.93 points, or 0.68%, to 22,836.66
What was Trump’s legal reason for imposing tariffs?
28 minutes ago
15:04 UTC
FILE PHOTO: Trump delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., April 2, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
During arguments in the case, conservative and liberal justices appeared to cast doubt on the legality of the tariffs, which Trump imposed by invoking a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies.
Trump’s administration was appealing rulings by lower courts that he overstepped his authority.
Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from individual countries – nearly every foreign trading partner – to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits.
He invoked the same law to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the United States as a national emergency.
Breaking
The Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs enacted under a federal law meant for national emergencies
30 minutes ago
15:02 UTC
Breaking
The Supreme Court has ruled on Trump’s tariffs
31 minutes ago
15:01 UTC
The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued its much-anticipated ruling on the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
The case marks a major test of presidential powers and has far reaching implication for the world economy.
The ruling has just been published and our reporters are combing through the details.
Stay with us and we’ll bring you everything you need to know, as well as reaction and analysis.
31 minutes ago
15:01 UTC
To respect your privacy, some content on this site may not be visible due to your current cookie preference settings. Content provided through social media plugins and other services may set non-essential cookies, advertising and other tracking technologies. To enable all content, you may need to update your cookie preferences. You can manage your cookie preference settings by clicking on the ‘Manage cookies’ link located in the page footer on desktop or ‘menu’ > ‘support & legal’ > ‘manage personal data’ on the app.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
发表回复