2026年2月21日 上午11:06 UTC / 路透社 / 安德鲁·钟报道
- 摘要
- 最高法院驳回特朗普的全球关税政策
- 该裁决是在数月有利于特朗普的判决之后作出的
- 部分法律专家曾质疑法院的独立性
华盛顿，2月21日（路透社）- 过去一年中，美国最高法院在数十起案件中支持了总统唐纳德·特朗普，增强了他的权力，并使他能迅速改变美国在移民、兵役、联邦就业等方面的政策。但周五，最高法院终于触及了权力的边界。
周五，最高法院推翻了特朗普在其第二任期内的一项核心优先事项，在一项重大裁决中认定，他对几乎所有美国贸易伙伴实施的全面全球关税超出了其根据联邦法律所拥有的权力。
路透社”内部动态”通讯是您了解全球体育界重大事件的必备指南。点击此处订阅。
广告 · 继续滚动阅读
由保守派首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨撰写的裁决书，在范围和影响上毫不含糊，没有将关税合法性的问题留待日后解决。它坚定地宣告这些关税违宪，未提及退税、贸易协议或对这位共和党总统本人的后果。
“法律遮羞布”
在此过程中，最高法院也重新确立了其作为制衡包括总统在内的其他政府部门的角色。此前一年，众多批评者和法律学者对法院的独立性日益表示怀疑。
纽约大学法学院宪法与总统制专家彼得·谢恩表示：”最高法院表明，它不会为特朗普政策的每一项内容都提供法律掩护。”
广告 · 继续滚动阅读
在6-3的裁决中，大法官们支持了下级法院的判决，认定特朗普依据1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）所主张的实施关税的权力不成立——此前从未有总统试图依据该法规这样做。
罗伯茨在裁决书中毫不含糊地指出：”我们今天的任务只是确定《国际紧急经济权力法》赋予总统的’规范…进口’权力是否包含实施关税的权力。答案是不包含。”
弗吉尼亚州威廉与玛丽法学院教授乔纳森·阿德勒表示：”这一决定表明，最高法院认真对待监督国会授予总统的权力范围。”
阿德勒补充道：”总统不能用旧瓶子装新酒。如果现行法律未解决问题，总统必须向国会请求更新的法规。”
法院以6-3的保守派多数通过裁决，但裁决结果并非沿意识形态划分。罗伯茨和同为保守派的大法官尼尔·戈萨奇、艾米·科尼·巴雷特（均为特朗普在第一任期内任命）与法院的三名自由派成员共同支持推翻特朗普的关税政策。另有三名保守派大法官表示异议。
特朗普毫不示弱地反驳，以极具个人色彩的措辞抨击裁决，尤其对包括自己任命的共和党人在内的投反对票者表示愤怒，称他们是”民主党人的傻瓜和走狗”。
特朗普对记者表示：”他们非常不爱国，对我们的宪法不忠。我认为法院受到了外国利益的影响。”
紧急案件处理
2025年大部分时间里，最高法院在一系列紧急案件中支持了特朗普的紧急请求，撤销了下级法院阻止其大胆政策的命令。这些紧急案件（或称”影子 docket”案件）通常无需大量简报或口头辩论，与常规案件数月审理后才出判决的流程不同。关税案于11月进行了口头辩论。
在28起紧急案件中，最高法院以多种法律途径支持了特朗普的诉求，其中24起判决有利于他，1起被裁定为无实际意义。这些裁决使他能够解雇联邦雇员、掌控独立机构、禁止跨性别者参军以及将移民驱逐至无联系的国家等。
这些对特朗普的胜利紧随2024年一项具有里程碑意义的裁决——同样由罗伯茨撰写——该裁决赋予他对2020年选举颠覆指控的广泛刑事豁免权。这一裁决及此后特朗普的多次胜诉，引发了众多批评者和法院观察者对美国最高司法机构独立性的质疑，以及对其是否愿意有力对抗一位不断越权且动辄抨击阻碍其行事的法官的担忧。
例如，特朗普去年曾呼吁弹劾一名在重大驱逐案件中作出不利裁决的法官，称其为”激进左派疯子”，这一言论遭到了罗伯茨的谴责。
同时，自其第二任期开始以来，关于特朗普政府是否违抗联邦司法机构不利命令的质疑不断，这可能引发宪法危机。
支持特朗普的裁决使法院自由派感到挫败。大法官科坦吉·布朗·杰克逊甚至在一份意见书中指出：”本届政府总是胜诉。”
不过，一些专家呼吁保持耐心，指出法院近期对特朗普的宽容可能在经过深思熟虑后，在重大政策合法性问题上发生转变。周五的关税案正是如此。
阿德勒表示：”影子 docket案件从未表明法院特别同情或偏袒特朗普政府。但这起案件是法院首次就特朗普政府的一项政策举措进行实质性审理。”
法院定于4月1日就特朗普限制美国出生公民权的另一项争议政策的合法性进行辩论，这一案件可能再次引发法官们的激烈反应。
此前的失利
在特朗普第一任期内，最高法院在关键案件中对他造成了重大打击，包括阻止他在全国人口普查问卷中加入公民身份问题，以及终止对非法入境儿童（”追梦人”）的驱逐保护政策。
加州大学伯克利分校法学院教授约翰·约指出，关税裁决得到了共和党和民主党总统任命的大法官的支持。
曾为保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯担任书记员的约表示：”这一裁决驳斥了左翼的指责，即最高法院（尤其是其保守派多数）只是为特朗普政府的政策盖橡皮图章。”
谢恩指出，关税案并不要求法院介入特朗普政策的明智性或其自由裁量权的合理性，也可能不会削弱特朗普未来的权力。
谢恩表示：”该裁决表明，在不涉及法院直接判定特朗普动机或质疑其判断力的纯法律问题上，存在多数派不会为其行动盖橡皮图章。”
报道：安德鲁·钟；编辑：艾米·史蒂文斯和威尔·邓纳姆
我们的标准：汤森路透信任原则
（注：此为模拟翻译，原文中”节点运行失败”为技术提示，已忽略）
With tariffs ruling, Supreme Court reasserts its power to check Trump
February 21, 2026 11:06 AM UTC / Reuters / By Andrew Chung
- Summary
- Supreme Court rejected Trump’s global tariffs
- Ruling comes after months of decisions favoring Trump
- Some legal experts had questioned court’s independence
WASHINGTON, Feb 21 (Reuters) – After siding with President Donald Trump in two dozen cases in the past year in ways that boosted his power and let him quickly transform U.S. policies on immigration, military service, federal employment and beyond, the U.S. Supreme Court finally reached its limit.
The court on Friday upended one of Trump’s top priorities in his second term as president, deciding in a blockbuster ruling that his imposition of sweeping global tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner exceeded his powers under federal law.
The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide to the biggest events in global sport. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The ruling, authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, did not waffle in its scope or effect, or leave questions about the legality of the tariffs to another day. It unswervingly struck them down, making no mention of the consequences for refunds, trade deals or the Republican president himself.
‘LEGAL COVER’
In doing so, the court also reasserted its role as a check on the other branches of government including the president, after a year when numerous critics and legal scholars had increasingly voiced doubts.
“The court has shown it will not necessarily provide legal cover for every plank of Trump’s platform,” said Peter Shane, an expert in constitutional law and the presidency at New York University School of Law.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The justices in the 6-3 decision upheld a lower court’s ruling that Trump’s use of a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act – or IEEPA – did not grant him the power he claimed to impose tariffs, something no president had previously tried to do under the statute.
In no uncertain terms, Roberts wrote in the ruling that Trump’s argument that a particular phrase in the law’s text gave him power to impose tariffs was wrong.
“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. It does not,” Roberts wrote.
“The decision shows that the Supreme Court is serious about policing the scope of power delegated to the president by Congress,” said Jonathan Adler, a professor at William & Mary Law School in Virginia.
“The president cannot just pour new wine out of old bottles,” Adler added. “If there are problems current statutes do not address, the president must ask Congress for a newer vintage.”
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, but the ruling was not split along ideological lines. Roberts and fellow conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – both appointed by Trump in his first term – joined the court’s three liberal members to strike down his tariffs. Three other conservative justices dissented.
Trump pulled no punches in rejoinder, casting the decision in extraordinarily personal terms and reserving special wrath for the Republican appointees including his own who ruled against him, calling them “fools” and “lapdogs” for Democrats.
“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution,” Trump told reporters, adding, “It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests.”
EMERGENCY REQUESTS
For most of 2025, the Supreme Court in case after case sided with Trump’s emergency requests to lift orders by lower-court judges blocking some of his boldest policies, while litigation challenging them played out.
Those actions on the court’s so-called emergency – or “shadow” – docket are usually handled without extensive briefing or oral arguments, in contrast with the court’s regular work where cases are assessed over months before a definitive ruling is issued. The tariffs case was argued in November.
Acting in 28 cases on an emergency basis, the court has used multiple legal paths to rule in favor of Trump in 24 of them during his second term, while another was declared moot. The decisions let him fire federal employees, take control of independent agencies, ban transgender people from the military and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, among other actions.
Those victories for Trump followed a landmark ruling in 2024 – also authored by Roberts – granting him broad immunity from criminal prosecution on his 2020 election subversion charges. That decision – and the repeated wins for Trump since – raised doubts among numerous critics and court watchers about the independence of the top U.S. judicial body and its willingness to confront a president aggressively pushing the limits of his power and apt to verbally attack judges who get in his way.
Trump, for instance, called last year for the impeachment of one judge who ruled against him in a major deportation issue, labeling him among other things a “Radical Left Lunatic” – an outburst that prompted a rebuke from Roberts.
At the same time, since early in his second term, questions have swirled over whether Trump’s administration has defied unfavorable orders by the federal judiciary, which could provoke a constitutional crisis.
The decisions in favor of Trump frustrated the court’s liberals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson even observed in one opinion that “this administration always wins.”
Still, some experts had urged patience, noting that the court’s recent permissiveness toward Trump might change once it resolved the legality of a major policy after extensive deliberation. That happened on Friday.
The shadow docket decisions “were never evidence of the court being particularly sympathetic to or solicitous of the Trump administration,” Adler said. “This case, on the other hand, is the first time the court has considered one of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives on the merits.”
The court is due to hear arguments on April 1 over the legality of another contentious Trump policy, his directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, in another case that could draw pushback from the justices.
PREVIOUS LOSSES
During Trump’s first term as president, the court handed him some significant losses in pivotal cases, including blocking his plans to add a citizenship question to the national census questionnaire and end a deportation protection for immigrants – known as “Dreamers” – who entered the United States illegally as children.
University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo highlighted the fact that the tariffs ruling was joined by justices appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents.
“The decision belies the attacks from the left that the Supreme Court – particularly its conservative majority – simply rubber-stamps the Trump administration’s policies,” said Yoo, a former clerk to conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.
Shane noted that the tariffs case did not require the court to wade into the wisdom of Trump’s policy or the soundness of his discretion – and may not undermine Trump’s power going forward.
“The ruling does suggest that, on pure questions of law that do not put the court in the position of smacking down Trump’s motives or second-guessing his judgment, there is a majority that will not rubber-stamp his action,” Shane said.
Reporting by Andrew Chung; editing by Amy Stevens and Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
节点运行失败