这一裁决打击了特朗普总统，该案件围绕他的一项标志性经济政策展开——他将这一政策描述为美国经济的“生死攸关”之举。
以6比3的裁决结果，大法官们宣布特朗普的关税无效。克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官、塞缪尔·阿利托大法官和布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官表示异议。
“制宪者将这项权力赋予了‘国会独享’——尽管关税显然涉及外交事务，”首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨代表多数派写道，“无论其他哪些涉及外交事务的权力可能存在，我们都不会期望国会通过模糊的语言放弃其关税权力，或者在没有仔细限制的情况下放弃。”
罗伯茨指出，特朗普在《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）中使用了“相隔16个词的两个词”——“调节”和“进口”——来证明他拥有“独立权力对任何国家的任何产品以任何税率、任何时间长度征收进口关税”。
“这些词无法承受这样的重负，”罗伯茨写道。
战场州承担特朗普关税负担，中期选举宣传升温
最高法院于11月就此案进行了口头辩论，该案件围绕特朗普使用IEEPA对包括10%全球关税和对某些国家的更高“互惠”关税在内的大多数国家实施其“解放日”关税展开。
今年4月，特朗普宣布美国贸易逆差为“国家紧急状态”，政府律师援引这一宣布作为援引IEEPA的法律依据，该法允许总统在宣布国家紧急状态时应对“异常和非常规威胁”。
在下级法院，包括美国国际贸易法院（CIT）和联邦巡回上诉法院在内的法院阻止了特朗普试图利用IEEPA制定进口关税的企图后，最高法院去年秋天同意审理此案。
下级法院要求司法部解释，为什么特朗普在国会制定了更具体的关税法规（包括将关税限制在特定水平或设定受国会审查的时间框架）的情况下，仍援引IEEPA。
该法律授权总统在宣布国家紧急状态期间“调节……进口”，但未提及“关税”一词——这一遗漏是11月最高法院长时间辩论的核心。缺乏这一术语是多数派裁决的关键因素。
在口头辩论中，大法官们向代表政府辩护的副检察长约翰·索尔施压，询问IEEPA是否适用于关税或征税权，以及如果最高法院支持特朗普，会有哪些限制行政部门的“护栏”。
特朗普谴责法院“政治性”关税裁决，呼吁最高法院迅速行动
索尔告诉大法官们，IEEPA允许总统“调节”商品的“进口”，他称这实际上等同于关税。
但包括特朗普任命的保守派大法官在内的大法官们表示怀疑，追问是否“有任何其他实例表明，一项法规使用了特朗普所寻求的这种语言来赋予其权力”。
其他保守派大法官质疑，根据该法律，总统是否可以使用“关税的经济等效物”（如制裁、禁运、许可证和配额）。
布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官在激烈的异议中提出，最高法院的裁决在退还非法征收的关税方面将产生“严重的实际后果”。多数派未处理退还问题，这一问题现在可能会在下级法院提出。
“美国可能需要向缴纳IEEPA关税的进口商退还数十亿美元，尽管一些进口商可能已经将成本转嫁给了消费者或其他人，”卡瓦诺写道，“正如口头辩论中所承认的，退款流程可能会是一场‘混乱’。”
特朗普政府的律师在下级法院辩称，IEEPA允许总统在应对“异常和非常规威胁”以及宣布国家紧急状态的情况下采取行动。
随着法院斗争加剧，特朗普关税计划前景不明
特朗普声称，持续和“持续”的贸易逆差构成了国家紧急状态，足以触发他根据紧急状态法享有的行政权力。
司法部敦促最高法院允许关税继续生效，警告称拒绝特朗普根据IEEPA获得的关税授权“将使我们国家暴露在没有有效防御的贸易报复之下”。
原告反驳称，自该法通过50年来，从未有总统使用IEEPA征收关税。他们还辩称，根据政府自己的承认，特朗普引用的贸易逆差已经持续了近50年——这一事实他们认为削弱了他关于存在“异常和非常规”贸易紧急状态的说法。
他们认为，授权特朗普继续使用IEEPA实施普遍关税将大幅扩大行政权力，损害其他政府部门。
美国国际贸易法院三名法官组成的小组去年一致投票阻止特朗普的关税生效，裁定作为总司令，特朗普没有根据紧急状态法“无限制权力”征收关税。联邦巡回上诉法院也驳回了政府对IEEPA的使用。
点击此处阅读完整裁决。应用用户点击此处。
布雷安妮·德皮施是福克斯新闻数字版的国家政治记者，报道特朗普政府，重点关注司法部、联邦调查局和其他国家新闻。她此前曾在《华盛顿 examiner》和《华盛顿邮报》报道国家政治，还为《政治杂志》、《科罗拉多公报》等撰写文章。你可以通过Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com向布雷安妮提供线索，或在X上关注她@breanne_dep。
The Supreme Court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, delivering a blow to the president in a case centered on one of his signature economic policies — one he characterized as “life or death” for the U.S. economy.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices invalidated Trump’s tariffs. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The Framers gave that power to ‘Congress alone’ — notwithstanding the obvious foreign affairs implications of tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “And whatever may be said of other powers that implicate foreign affairs, we would not expect Congress to relinquish its tariff power through vague language, or without careful limits.”
Roberts noted that Trump used “two words” that were “separated by 16 others” in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), “regulate” and “importation,” to justify that he had the “independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.”
“Those words cannot bear such weight,” Roberts wrote.
BATTLEGROND STATES SHOULDER BURDEN OF TRUMP’S TARIFFS AS MIDTERM MESSAGING RAMPS UP
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November in the case, which centered on Trump’s use of the IEEPA to enact his “Liberation Day” tariffs on most countries, including a 10% global tariff and a set of higher, so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on certain nations.
In April, Trump declared the U.S. trade deficit a “national emergency,” and lawyers for the administration have cited that declaration as the legal basis for invoking IEEPA, which allows the president to respond to “unusual and extraordinary threats” when a national emergency has been declared.
The high court agreed to take up the case last fall after lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, blocked Trump’s attempt to use IEEPA to enact import duties.
Lower courts pressed the Justice Department to explain why Trump invoked IEEPA when other, more narrowly tailored statutes enacted by Congress more specifically address tariffs — including laws that cap tariffs at certain levels or set timeframes subject to congressional review.
The law authorizes the president to “regulate … importation” during a declared national emergency, but it does not mention the word “tariffs” — an omission that was at the heart of the hours-long arguments before the high court in November. The absence of the word was a key factor in the majority’s decision.
During oral arguments, justices pressed Solicitor General John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the government, on whether IEEPA applies to tariffs or taxation powers and what guardrails — if any — would limit the executive branch should the high court rule in Trump’s favor.
TRUMP DENOUNCES COURT’S ‘POLITICAL’ TARIFF DECISION, CALLS ON SUPREME COURT TO ACT QUICKLY
Sauer told the justices that IEEPA allows a president to “regulate” “importation” of goods, which he said was the practical equivalent of a tariff.
But justices, including Trump’s conservative appointees, appeared skeptical, pressing Sauer on whether there has “ever been another instance in which a statute has used that language to confer the power” Trump seeks.
Other conservative justices questioned whether an “economic equivalent” to tariffs — such as sanctions, embargoes, licenses and quotas — could be used by the president under the law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised in a fiery dissent what he said would be “serious practical consequences” of the high court’s decision in terms of refunding illegitimately imposed tariffs. The majority did not address refunds, an issue now likely to be raised in lower courts.
“The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” Kavanaugh wrote. “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”
Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued in lower courts that the IEEPA allows a president to act in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats” and in cases where a national emergency has been declared.
TRUMP TARIFF PLAN FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE AS COURT BATTLES INTENSIFY
Trump has claimed that deep and “sustained” trade deficits amount to a national emergency that is sufficient to trigger his executive powers under the emergency law.
The DOJ urged the Supreme Court to allow the tariffs to remain in place, warning that denying Trump the tariff authority under IEEPA “would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses.”
Plaintiffs countered that in the 50 years since its passage, the law has never been used by a president to impose tariffs. They also argued that, by the administration’s own admission, the trade deficit cited by Trump has persisted for nearly 50 years — a fact they said undermines his claim that there is an “unusual and extraordinary” trade emergency.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
They argued that authorizing Trump’s use of IEEPA to continue his universal tariffs would drastically expand executive power at the expense of the other branches of government.
Judges on a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade voted unanimously last year to block Trump’s tariffs from taking effect, ruling that as commander in chief, Trump does not have “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs under the emergency law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also rejected the administration’s use of IEEPA.
Read the full decision below. App users click here.
Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.
发表回复