2026年3月5日 美国东部时间下午5:38 / 路透社
作者：Dietrich Knauth
3月5日（路透社）- 周四，24个美国州联合提起诉讼，起诉唐纳德·特朗普总统的政府，这是对其新实施的10%全球关税的首次法律挑战。这些州指控总统不能通过援引新的法律权威，来规避最高法院最近一项裁定——该裁定宣布其大部分先前针对进口商品的关税无效。
以民主党为主导的这些州（包括纽约州、加利福尼亚州和俄勒冈州）辩称，特朗普在2月20日最高法院作出裁决后立即宣布的新关税同样不合法。根据各州向位于纽约的美国国际贸易法院提起的诉讼，根据1974年《贸易法》，这些关税被强制征收150天，而该法本应仅用于应对短期货币紧急情况，而非像美国这样的富裕国家出现进口超过出口时产生的常规贸易逆差。
想要在早晨就获取最新法律新闻，并直接发送到您的收件箱？请订阅《每日日程》（The Daily Docket）新闻通讯，点击此处注册。
节点运行失败
俄勒冈州总检察长丹·雷菲尔德（Dan Rayfield）在新闻发布会上表示，特朗普的最新关税是试图绕过美国宪法要求的与国会合作的”最后一招”。
“毫无疑问，特朗普总统标志性的经济政策在历史上不受欢迎，它正使美国民众、我们的企业以及我们各州损失数万亿美元，”雷菲尔德说，”不能仅仅因为特朗普的少数律师找到了一种扭曲文字和编造法律论点的方法，就让这种做法继续下去。”
白宫发言人库什·德赛（Kush Desai）在一份声明中表示，政府将在法庭上坚决捍卫总统的行动。
“总统正在行使国会赋予的权力，以解决根本的国际支付问题，并处理我国严重的国际收支逆差，”德赛说。
特朗普2月20日的行政命令对进口商品征收10%的关税，但美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特（Scott Bessent）周三表示，这些税率本周晚些时候可能会升至15%。
核心支柱
特朗普在其第二任期内将关税作为其外交政策的核心支柱，声称拥有无需国会参与即可颁布关税的广泛权力。但最高法院在2月20日给予了特朗普沉重打击，推翻了他根据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）实施的大量关税，裁定该法律并未赋予他所声称的权力。
特朗普对此回应称，批评了裁定对他不利的大法官们，并宣布根据1974年《贸易法》第122条实施新的关税。该法律与IEEPA一样，此前从未在美国被用于征收关税。特朗普还根据更传统的法律授权，对汽车、钢铁和铝等进口商品征收了其他关税。这些关税面临法律挑战的风险较低。
第122条授权允许总统对所有国家的任何进口商品征收最高15%的关税，期限不超过150天，以解决”大规模且严重”的国际收支问题。该条款不需要进行调查或设置其他程序限制。150天后，国会需要批准延长。
根据各州的说法，《贸易法》中规定的国际收支赤字措施主要是为了应对”过时的”货币风险——这些风险是在外国政府可以用美元兑换美国持有的黄金时存在的。然而，各州称，特朗普错误地适用了这一标准，试图以此解决美国的”贸易逆差”问题——即一个国家进口超过出口时出现的情况。
提起诉讼的州包括22个拥有民主党总检察长的州，以及两个（宾夕法尼亚州和肯塔基州）——它们有民主党州长和共和党总检察长。这些州要求法院发布命令，阻止新关税的实施，并要求退还根据第122条授权已缴纳的任何关税款项。
与此同时，法院正在处理约2000起企业提起的诉讼，这些企业要求退还最高法院2月裁定前进口商根据IEEPA缴纳的超过1300亿美元的关税。周三，法院命令美国海关开始处理关税退款。
纽约的Dietrich Knauth、波士顿的Nate Raymond、华盛顿特区的Jan Wolfe报道，Alexia Garamfalvi和Diane Craft编辑
我们的标准：路透社信托原则。
Twenty-four US states file lawsuit to stop Trump’s latest global tariffs
March 5, 2026 5:38 PM UTC / Reuters
By Dietrich Knauth
March 5 (Reuters) – A group of 24 U.S. states sued President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday in the first legal challenge to his newly imposed 10% global tariffs, alleging that the president cannot sidestep a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most of his previous tariffs on imported goods by citing new legal authority.
The Democratic-led states, including New York, California and Oregon, argue the new tariffs, which Trump announced immediately after the high court ruling on February 20, are also illegal. The tariffs were imposed for 150 days under the Trade Act of 1974, which is meant to address short-term monetary emergencies, not routine trade deficits that arise when a wealthy nation like the United States imports more than it exports, according to the states’ lawsuit filed in the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
节点运行失败
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said during a press conference that Trump’s latest tariffs are an attempted “end run” around working with Congress, as the U.S. Constitution requires.
“Make no mistake about it, President Trump’s signature economic policy is historically unpopular and is costing Americans, our business, and us as states hundreds of billions of dollars,” Rayfield said. “It cannot continue just because a few of Trump’s lawyers have found a way to twist words and craft a legal argument.”
White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement that the administration will vigorously defend the president’s action in court.
“The President is using his authority granted by Congress to address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with our country’s large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,” Desai said.
Trump’s February 20 executive order imposed a 10% tariff on imports, but U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that those rates would likely rise to 15% later this week.
CENTRAL PILLAR
Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign policy in his second term, claiming sweeping authority to issue tariffs without input from Congress. But the Supreme Court on February 20 handed Trump a stinging defeat when it struck down a huge swath of tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling that the law did not give him the power he claimed.
Trump responded by criticizing the justices who ruled against him and announcing new duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that – like IEEPA – had never before been used to impose tariffs in the U.S. Trump has also imposed other tariffs, on imports like autos, steel and aluminum, under more traditional legal authority. Those tariffs are safer from legal challenges.
Section 122 authority allows the president to impose duties of up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries to address “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits. After 150 days, Congress would need to approve their extension.
The balance-of-payments deficit measures in the Trade Act are primarily meant to address “archaic” monetary risks that existed when foreign governments could trade in their dollars for gold held by the U.S., according to the states. Trump, however, has misapplied that standard in an attempt to instead address U.S. “trade deficits,” which occur when a nation imports more than it exports, according to the states.
The states that filed the lawsuit include 22 states with Democratic attorneys general and two, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, with Democratic governors and Republican attorneys general. They are asking the court to issue an order that would block the new tariffs and order any tariff payments already made under Section 122 authority to be refunded.
Meanwhile, the court is grappling with about 2,000 lawsuits from businesses seeking refunds for more than $130 billion in IEEPA tariff payments made by importers before the Supreme Court’s February ruling. On Wednesday, the court ordered U.S. Customs to begin processing tariff refunds.
Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York, Nate Raymond in Boston, Jan Wolfe in Washington, D.C., Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Diane Craft
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复