2026年2月20日 / 美国东部时间下午2:26 / CBS新闻
华盛顿—— 周五，最高法院以6比3的裁决宣布总统特朗普最全面的关税政策无效，认定他无权依据一项紧急权力法案征收这些关税。
6比3的裁决中，多数派包括三位自由派大法官和三位保守派大法官，其中首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）以及索尼娅·索托马约尔（Sonia Sotomayor）、埃琳娜·卡根（Elena Kagan）、尼尔·戈萨奇（Neil Gorsuch）、艾米·科尼·巴雷特（Amy Coney Barrett）和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）大法官均在其中。克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）、塞缪尔·阿利托（Samuel Alito）和布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）大法官持异议。
六位大法官一致认为，被称为《国际紧急经济权力法》（International Emergency Economic Powers Act，简称IEEPA）的法律并未赋予总统征收关税的权力。
IEEPA于1977年颁布，授权总统“规范……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”。去年4月，特朗普宣布对几乎所有国家实施最全面的关税时，援引了IEEPA，称此举是为应对他所说的“长期且巨大”的贸易逆差。他还依据该法律对中国、加拿大和墨西哥加征关税，声称这些国家未能阻止非法芬太尼和其他毒品流入美国。
在特朗普之前，没有任何一位总统曾依据IEEPA征收关税，而且该法律中并未使用“关税”或“税”等类似词汇。
所有六位多数派大法官均一致认为，IEEPA并未赋予总统征收关税的权力。
“我们今天的任务只是裁定，IEEPA赋予总统的‘规范……进口’权力是否包含征收关税的权力，”罗伯茨为多数派撰写的意见中写道，“答案是否定的。”
最高法院在“学习资源诉特朗普案”中的裁决
法院指出，关税与IEEPA规定的其他权力不同，且与其他权力不同的是，关税“直接作用于国内进口商，为财政部增加收入”。多数派认为，按照政府对“规范……进口”一词的解释，总统可以对任何国家的任何产品征收“无限金额和期限”的关税。
“当国会授予征收关税的权力时，会明确且谨慎地加以限制，”罗伯茨在裁决的一部分中写道，而其他五位多数派大法官也同意这一观点，“但在这里，国会并未如此行事。”
尽管六位大法官一致认为总统无权依据IEEPA征收关税，但他们的推理过程存在明显分歧。
重大问题原则
三位保守派大法官——罗伯茨、戈萨奇和巴雷特——适用了所谓的“重大问题原则”，该原则认为，行政部门在涉及政治或经济重大意义的问题上所主张的广泛权力，必须得到国会的明确授权。
最高法院的保守派在过去测试行政部门重大政策合法性的案件中，例如推翻拜登总统的学生贷款减免计划和阻止新冠疫情期间的驱逐暂停令时，均依赖了这一原则。
只有戈萨奇和巴雷特加入了罗伯茨意见中援引重大问题原则的部分。
“总统必须‘指出明确的国会授权’来证明其征收关税这一非凡权力主张的合理性，”罗伯茨写道，“但他无法做到这一点。”
首席大法官表示，国会不会“通过模糊的语言”或不加限制地放弃其关税权力。
“当国会授予关税权力时，会以明确的措辞并受到严格限制，”罗伯茨说。
他还指出，依据IEEPA实施的关税所产生的经济和政治后果“惊人”。
“政府援引预测称，这些关税将减少4万亿美元的国家赤字，而基于这些关税达成的国际协议价值可能达15万亿美元，”罗伯茨写道，“在总统看来，美国是‘富有的国家’还是‘贫穷的国家’取决于这些关税。这些利害关系远超其他重大问题案件中的情况。”
法律条文解释
在多数派内部，自由派大法官索托马约尔、卡根和杰克逊则认为，IEEPA确实没有赋予总统征收关税的权力，但他们的结论是通过卡根所说的“普通的法律条文解释工具”得出的。
“IEEPA赋予总统在涉及外国财产的交易（包括货物进口）方面的重大权力，但在这一慷慨的授权中，一项权力明显缺失，”卡根在与索托马约尔和杰克逊共同撰写的赞同意见中写道，“IEEPA的文本和背景中都没有任何内容允许总统单方面征收关税。不用说，没有法定授权，总统的关税措施就无法成立。”
六位多数派大法官一致认为，IEEPA对征收关税的权力未作任何规定，而且在特朗普之前，没有任何一位总统认为该法律授权征收关税。
“每位总统都按照国会制定的法律来解读这些法规，IEEPA使他能够规范进口，而第19编美国法典（Title 19）使他在特定情况下能够对这些外国商品征税，”卡根写道，指的是涵盖关税的美国法典部分，“据任何人所知，没有一位总统曾考虑过其他做法。”
异议者
主要的异议来自卡瓦诺，他认为总统依据IEEPA对“规范……进口”的授权包含征收关税的权力。他表示，历史上一直有总统将征收关税作为规范进口和商业的传统工具。托马斯和阿利托加入了他的异议。
“与配额和禁运一样，关税是规范进口的传统且常见的工具，”卡瓦诺说。
他写道，IEEPA允许总统对外国进口实施配额或禁运，而这些是比关税更严厉的工具。他认为，该法律并未对这些行为加以区分，而是“授权总统在国家紧急状态期间使用总统传统上和通常使用的工具（包括配额、禁运和关税）来规范进口”。
关于重大问题原则，卡瓦诺表示，本案满足这一原则，因为“法律条文、历史和先例构成了‘明确的国会授权’，允许总统依据IEEPA征收关税”。此外，他还指出，历史上的总统一直将征收关税作为“规范……进口”的一种方式。
卡瓦诺还辩称，最高法院从未将重大问题原则适用于外交事务（包括对外贸易）相关的事项。
“在外交事务案件中，法院会按法律条文字面意思解读，并不会使用重大问题原则作为对总统不利的‘砝码’，”卡瓦诺说。
不过，他指出，这一裁决可能不会显著限制总统未来设定关税的能力，因为还有许多其他法规可用于为本案中涉及的关税提供法律依据。
解析特朗普关税政策的最高法院裁决
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/breaking-down-the-supreme-courts-decision-against-trumps-tariffs/
解析最高法院对特朗普关税政策的裁决
（05:40）
Why the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s most sweeping tariffs
February 20, 2026 / 2:26 PM EST / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday invalidated President Trump’s most sweeping tariffs, finding in a 6-3 ruling that he does not have the authority to impose the levies using an emergency powers law.
The 6-3 decision included three liberals and three conservatives in the majority. The coalition included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The six justices found that the law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not give the president the power to impose tariffs.
Enacted in 1977, 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. When he announced his most sweeping tariffs on nearly every country last April, Mr. Trump invoked IEEPA to respond to what he said were “large and persistent” trade deficits. He also relied on the law to hit China, Canada and Mexico with levies over what the president claimed was their failure to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl and other drugs into the U.S.
No president before Mr. Trump had used IEEPA to impose tariffs, and the law does not use that word or others like it, such as duty, levy or tax.
All six of the justices who were in the majority agreed that IEEPA does not give the president the power to impose levies.
“Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate … importation,’ as granted to the president in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote for the majority. “It does not.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump
The court said tariffs are different from the other authorities laid out in IEEPA and, unlike those, they “operate directly on domestic importers to raise revenue for the Treasury.” The majority said that under the government’s interpretation of the phrase “regulate … importation,” the president could impose duties “of unlimited amount and duration, on any product from any country.”
“When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints,” Roberts wrote in a portion of his decision joined by the other five colleagues in the majority. “It did neither here.”
While the six justices agreed that the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA, there were notable divisions over their reasoning.
Major questions doctrine
The three conservative justices — Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett — applied what’s known as the major questions doctrine, which says that broad assertions of power claimed by the executive on issues of political or economic significance must be clearly authorized by Congress.
The Supreme Court’s conservative wing has relied on that doctrine in past cases testing the legality of major policies from the executive branch, including when it struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and blocked an eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Only Gorsuch and Barrett joined the section of Roberts’ opinion that invoked the major questions doctrine.
The president, Roberts wrote, “must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of power to impose tariffs. He cannot.”
Congress would not be expected to “relinquish its tariff power through vague language” or without constraints, the chief justice wrote.
“When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits,” Roberts said.
He also said that the economic and political consequences of the tariffs implemented under IEEPA are “astonishing.”
“The Government points to projections that the tariffs will reduce the national deficit by $4 trillion, and that international agreements reached in reliance on the tariffs could be worth $15 trillion,” Roberts wrote. “In the President’s view, whether ‘we are a rich nation’ or a ‘poor’ one hangs in the balance. These stakes dwarf those of other major questions cases.”
Statutory interpretation
On the other side of the majority, the liberal justices — Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson — agreed that IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to impose tariffs, but reached the conclusion using what Kagan said were the “ordinary tools of statutory interpretation.”
“IEEPA gives the President significant authority over transactions involving foreign property, including the importation of goods. But in that generous delegation, one power is conspicuously missing,” Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. “Nothing in IEEPA’s text, nor anything in its context, enables the President to unilaterally impose tariffs. And needless to say, without statutory authority, the President’s tariffs cannot stand.”
All six of the justices in the majority agreed that IEEPA is silent on the power to impose tariffs, and no president before Mr. Trump understood the law to authorize duties.
“Each president read the statutes as Congress wrote them, with IEEPA enabling him to regulate imports and Title 19 enabling him — in confined situations — to tax those foreign goods,” Kagan wrote, referring to the portion of the U.S. Code that covers customs duties. “None, as far as anyone has suggested, even considered doing otherwise.”
The dissenters
The principal dissent came from Kavanaugh, who wrote that the president’s authority under IEEPA to “regulate … importation” encompasses tariffs. There is a long tradition of presidents imposing duties as a way of regulating importation and commerce, he said. Thomas and Alito joined his dissent.
“Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” Kavanaugh said.
He wrote that IEEPA allows the president to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports, which he said are more severe tools than tariffs. The law, he said, does not draw distinctions between those actions and instead “empowers the president to regulate imports during national emergencies with the tools presidents have traditionally and commonly used, including quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.”
Regarding the major questions doctrine, Kavanaugh said it is satisfied in this case because the “statutory text, history and precedent constitute ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the president to impose levies under IEEPA.” Plus, presidents throughout history have imposed tariffs as a way to “regulate … importation,” he continued.
Kavanaugh also argued that the Supreme Court has never applied the major questions doctrine to matters of foreign affairs, including foreign trade.
“In foreign affairs cases, courts read the statute as written and do not employ the major questions doctrine as a thumb on the scale against the president,” Kavanaugh said.
He noted, however, that the ruling may not significantly constrain a president’s ability to set tariffs moving forward, since there are many other statutes that can be used to justify the tariffs at issue in the case.
Breaking down the Trump tariffs ruling
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/breaking-down-the-supreme-courts-decision-against-trumps-tariffs/
Breaking down the Supreme Court’s decision against Trump’s tariffs
(05:40)
发表回复