2026年4月10日 美国东部时间下午4:02 / 福克斯新闻
曼哈顿的一个三名法官组成的合议庭正在审议特朗普重启关税计划的合法性
作者：布雷安娜·德皮施 福克斯新闻
最高法院就关税问题作出裁决后，特朗普总统声称存在外部干预
福克斯新闻资深白宫记者彼得·杜西在《特别报道》中报道了特朗普总统对最高法院关税裁决的反应，以及新关税政策的公布情况。
新功能：你现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
收听本文
时长3分钟
美国国际贸易法院周五对唐纳德·特朗普总统援引一项鲜为人知的紧急贸易法律为其全面征收10%全球关税的做法表示质疑——这将引发一场虽在技术层面上属于新案件，但本质上却似曾相识的法律交锋，核心围绕现任总统何时以及如何能够单方面对大多数美国贸易伙伴征收高额进口税。
在近两小时的庭审辩论中，美国国际贸易法院的三名法官合议庭围绕特朗普援引《1974年贸易法》第122条的合法性展开了激烈讨论。该条款是一项应急条款，旨在应对“规模巨大且严重的”国际收支失衡问题，法官们正在探讨该条款在当前经济环境下的适用性。
根据第122条，总统有权单方面对美国贸易伙伴征收最高15%的进口税，为期150天，以应对规模巨大且严重的“国际收支赤字”，或可能立即削弱美元购买力的情况。
庭审辩论的焦点在于对“国际收支赤字”一词的解读，以及特朗普援引第122条时提及的持续美国贸易赤字，是否符合国会在1970年代中期通过该贸易法案时所设想的危机类型。
特朗普警告最高法院关税对决对美国而言是“生死攸关”
一名抗议者在美国最高法院外举着标语。（比尔·克拉克/CQ-滚呼公司 via 盖蒂图片社）
三名法官组成的合议庭似乎对特朗普政府的论点持怀疑态度，并质疑国会当初制定该法规时，是否意图将其适用于特定的国际货币压力事件，而非长期存在的贸易失衡问题。
“你们真的是说，仅凭大规模的贸易赤字就足够了吗？”法官询问司法部律师布雷特·舒梅特，并补充道：“我不这么认为，我认为国会也不这么认为。”
舒梅特辩称，国会已赋予总统广泛的自由裁量权来评估经济状况，并确定何种“国际收支”赤字值得采取紧急干预措施。
舒梅特还逐一列举了特朗普在公告中援引的其他经济指标，包括经常账户赤字、“国际投资净头寸”等。
“关键一点在于，”舒梅特说，“国会赋予了总统自由裁量权。”
联邦法官叫停特朗普5项关税行政命令
美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在“让美国再次富裕起来”贸易公告活动上发表讲话。（奇普·索莫德维利亚/盖蒂图片社）
此次庭审辩论发生在24名州总检察长联名起诉特朗普政府援引第122条的数周之后。这些总检察长认为，此举是非法试图“绕过”最高法院2月份的裁决，该裁决阻止了特朗普使用紧急经济权力法律单方面实施其所谓的“解放日”关税。
舒梅特周五表示，《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）和第122条这两项法律依据都适用于特朗普，并告诉法庭，特朗普本可以更早援引第122条。
代表原告方的律师周五告诉法庭，如果支持政府对该法律的宽泛解读，实际上将把第122条变成一个万能的贸易武器。
随着法庭斗争加剧，特朗普关税计划前途未卜
2025年3月28日，交易员在纽约证券交易所（NYSE）交易大厅工作。（斯宾塞·普拉特/盖蒂图片社）
杰弗里·施瓦布是周五案件中一组原告方的律师，他表示政府的理论“非常、非常、非常宽泛”，并补充说这可能允许总统“在任何时间、任何时刻，随心所欲地采取行动，永远如此”。
特朗普是首位试图同时援引《国际紧急经济权力法》和第122条来单方面征收关税的总统。
此案被广泛视为可能有助于界定总统关税权力边界的关键案件。
无论如何，这两起案件的新颖性，以及贸易法院周五展现出的质疑态度，都表明新的第122条关税政策可能会重蹈其首次关税政策的法律诉讼覆辙。
布雷安娜·德皮施是福克斯新闻数字频道的全国政治记者，负责报道特朗普政府，重点关注司法部、联邦调查局及其他全国性新闻。她此前曾在《华盛顿考察家报》和《华盛顿邮报》报道全国政治，作品还见于《政客杂志》、《科罗拉多公报》等媒体。你可以通过Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com向布雷安娜发送爆料线索，或在X平台关注她，账号为@breanne_dep。
Court poised to block Trump tariffs again, teeing up new fight
April 10, 2026 4:02pm EDT / Fox News
A 3-judge panel in Manhattan is considering the legality of Trump’s renewed tariff plan
By Breanne Deppisch Fox News
After the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, President Trump claims outside influence
Fox News senior White House correspondent Peter Doocy reports on President Trump’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling and unveiling of new tariffs on ‘Special Report.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
3 min
The Court of International Trade on Friday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s use of a little-known emergency trade law to justify his sweeping, 10% global tariffs — teeing up a familiar, if technically new, legal fight focused on when and how a sitting president can act to unilaterally impose steep import fees on most U.S. trading partners.
During nearly two hours of arguments, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade grappled with Trump’s use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — an emergency provision designed to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments problems — and its applicability in today’s economy.
Under Section 122, a president has the authority to unilaterally impose import fees of up to 15% on U.S. trading partners for a period of 150 days, to respond to large and serious “balance of payments deficits,” or instances that risk immediately depreciating the power of the dollar.
Arguments before the court hinged on interpretation of the “balance of payments deficits” phrase, and whether the persistent U.S. trade deficits cited by Trump in invoking Section 122 aligned with the kind of crisis that Congress had envisioned when it passed the trade law in the mid-1970s.
TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA
A protester holds a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court.(Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Members of the three-judge panel appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, and questioned whether Congress intended the statute to apply to specific instances of international currency pressures, rather than long-running trade imbalances.
“Are you really saying that a large trade deficit alone is sufficient?” the judge asked Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate, adding, “I don’t think it is, and I think Congress didn’t think it is.”
Congress, Shumate argued, had provided presidents with broad discretion to assess economic conditions, and to identify what “balance of power” deficits warrant emergency intervention.
Shumate also ticked through a list of other economic indicators Trump cited in his proclamation — including the current account deficit, and the “net international investment” position, among other things.
“The important point,” Shumate said, “is that Congress provided the president [with] discretion.”
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS 5 TRUMP TARIFF EXECUTIVE ORDERS
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The arguments come weeks after a group of 24 attorneys general sued the administration over Trump’s use of Section 122, arguing that the move was an illegal attempt to “sidestep” the Supreme Court’s ruling in February that blocked Trump’s use of an emergency economic powers law to unilaterally impose his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Shumate said Friday that both authorities — IEEPA and Section 122 — were available to Trump, and told the court that Trump could have invoked Section 122 earlier.
Lawyers for the challenges told the court Friday that upholding the administration’s broader view of the law would effectively turn Section 122 into an all-purpose trade weapon.
TRUMP TARIFF PLAN FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE AS COURT BATTLES INTENSIFY
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on March 28, 2025, in New York City.(Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer representing one set of challengers in Friday’s case, said the government’s theory was “very, very, very broad,” adding that it could allow the president to act “at any point, at any moment that he wants, forever.”
Trump is the first president to attempt to use both IEEPA and Section 122 to unilaterally impose tariffs.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The case is seen broadly as one that could help define the outer bounds of presidential tariff authority.
If nothing else, the novelty of both cases, and the skepticism on display by the trade court Friday suggests the new Section 122 tariffs might follow a legal fight that is similar to his first.
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