2026年2月20日 / 美国东部时间上午10:36 / CBS新闻
企业主们表示，最高法院周五做出的一项推翻美国大规模关税的裁决，可能会通过降低成本并可能带来退税，为他们带来缓解。
最高法院裁定，特朗普总统根据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）对进口商品征收关税的行为没有合法权力。特朗普去年援引这项1977年通过的法律，对数十个美国贸易伙伴征收关税，声称贸易逆差以及芬太尼和其他非法药物流入美国构成了国家紧急状态。
为婴儿制作餐时用品的Busy Baby公司联合创始人贝丝·贝尼克（Beth Benike）表示，此前对IEEPA关税地位的不确定性迫使她停止了所有从中国的进口，该明尼苏达州公司的产品均在中国制造。她在中国还存有制造商为其暂存的海外库存。
“我本该上个月就把货运回来，但我一直在等待最高法院的裁决，因为这关系到是否要多支付48,000美元的关税，”她在最高法院周五发布期待已久的裁决前告诉CBS新闻。
纽约联邦储备银行近期的分析发现，2025年美国企业和消费者承担了特朗普关税的主要成本，支付了近90%的关税金额。特朗普政府对该分析表示异议。
潜在数十亿美元退税
无党派智库卡托研究所（Cato Institute）通用经济学副所长斯科特·林西科姆（Scott Lincicome）表示，最高法院对特朗普关税的裁定“撤销了特朗普2025年关税中最庞大、最严厉的部分，并几乎肯定要求退还已征收的关税”。
根据里士满联邦储备银行的数据，美国财政部2025年共征收2870亿美元关税，较上一年增长192%。PNC金融服务集团表示，截至12月中旬，IEEPA关税已征收约1300亿美元，但企业可能获得的退税总额接近1500亿美元。
“我预计会全额退税，但如果因某种原因无法获得，我就不得不提高价格，这对消费者来说会很艰难，”贝尼克说，“购买婴儿用品的人们本就需要在孩子出生前购买新东西，现在他们已经面临经济压力了。”
无党派税收政策中心（Tax Policy Center）数据显示，包括特朗普根据IEEPA征收的关税在内，所有进口商品的平均关税税率约为17%。
弗吉尼亚州雷斯顿市Elden Street茶叶店店主瑞秋·罗兹纳（Rachel Rozner）表示，在裁决前，最高法院推翻IEEPA关税的判决对她的生意将产生“巨大影响”。她销售的大部分茶叶和其他产品来自中国、印度、日本和尼泊尔。
“如果我能顺利下单并拿到产品，而且知道价格合理，那将大大减轻我的压力，”她告诉CBS新闻。
尽管裁决后她的生意可能有资格获得关税退税，但她对能否获得退款并不乐观。
“如果他们在你拿到退款前就资金耗尽怎么办？”她表示担忧，“我担心有些人能拿到退款，而另一些人可能拿不到，而且可能会有人利用这个系统。”
专家：或需数月才能启动退税
与此同时，一些专家认为美国可能不会全额退还IEEPA关税收入。
摩根士丹利分析师在报告中指出：“我们认为，在退税开始前可能需要几个月时间，如果退税分配面临重大法律挑战，时间会更长。”
特朗普政府或用其他关税替代
特朗普政府表示，他们可以部署其他进口关税来替代IEEPA关税。上个月，白宫经济顾问凯文·哈塞特（Kevin Hassett）告诉福克斯商业频道，政府已制定计划，在最高法院可能对特朗普政府依赖IEEPA对贸易伙伴征收大规模关税的裁决不利的情况下，通过其他权力重新实施关税。
“我们认为自己处于非常有利的地位，但我们有一个备用计划，以及备用计划的备用计划，我们相信如果最高法院对我们不利，我们可以根据1974年《贸易法》第301条等其他授权，几乎立即恢复关税，”哈塞特补充道。
第301条允许美国总统在贸易代表认定另一国存在不公平贸易行为时，酌情对该国商品征收关税。
然而，贸易专家指出，第301条关税有诸多限制，不能适用于所有外国进口商品。摩根士丹利分析师表示，用替代关税取代IEEPA关税可能也需要数月时间。
特朗普政府还可能援引1962年《贸易扩张法》第232条，该条款允许总统根据商务部的调查，对贸易伙伴征收关税以保护国家安全。
最高法院裁定反对特朗普关税
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/supreme-court-rules-against-trumps-tariffs-special-report/
Supreme Court ruling against Trump tariffs will offer relief, business owners say
February 20, 2026 / 10:36 AM EST / CBS News
Business owners said that a Supreme Court ruling on Friday striking down sweeping U.S. tariffs could spell relief by lowering their costs and potentially leading to refunds.
The high court ruled that President Trump does not have the authority to impose levies on imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. Mr. Trump last year invoked the 1977 law to impose tariffs on dozens of U.S. trade partners, claiming that trade deficits and the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs into the U.S. constitute national emergencies.
Beth Benike, co-founder of Busy Baby, which makes mealtime accessories for babies, said previous uncertainty about the status of the IEEPA tariffs had forced her to halt all imports from China, where the Minnesota-based company’s products are made. She also has inventory in China that her manufacturer is holding for her overseas.
“I should have had it shipped last month, but I was waiting for the Supreme Court decision, because it was the difference between paying an extra $48,000 [in tariffs] or not,” she told CBS News before the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on Friday.
A recent analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that U.S. businesses and consumers bore the brunt of Mr. Trump’s tariffs in 2025, paying for nearly 90% of the levies. The Trump administration disputes the analysis.
Billions in potential refunds
Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said the Supreme Court ruling against Mr. Trump’s tariffs nullifies “the biggest and baddest of Trump’s 2025 tariffs and almost certainly requires the refund of duties already collected.”
The Treasury Department collected $287 billion in tariffs in 2025, up 192% from the previous year, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. As of mid‑December, roughly $130 billion had been collected in IEEPA tariffs, although the total refunds for businesses could approach $150 billion, according to PNC Financial Services Group.
“I am expecting a full refund, but if for some reason we don’t get them, I would have to raise my prices, which will be tough for consumers,” Benike said. “People buying baby products are already buying new stuff they didn’t have to buy before they had the baby, so they are already squeezed.”
The average tariff rate on all imports is around 17%, including levies Mr. Trump imposed under IEEPA, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Rachel Rozner, owner of Elden Street Tea Shop in Reston, Virginia, said ahead of the decision that a Supreme Court ruling striking down the IEEPA tariffs could make an “astronomical” difference for her business. Most of the tea and other products she sells come from China, India, Japan and Nepal.
“If I can just order and get the product, and I know the price is good, that will take away a lot of stress,” she told CBS News.
Although her business could be eligible for a tariff refund following the ruling, she isn’t confident she’ll be reimbursed.
“What if they run out of money before you’re able to get your refund?” she said. “I’m worried that some people might get refunds and others will not, and that people will take advantage of the system.”
Meanwhile, some experts think the U.S. may not fully refund IEEPA tariff revenue.
“[W]e think it’s reasonable to assume a few months would pass before refunds begin, and even longer if the distribution faces significant legal challenges,” Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report.
Other tariffs to fill the void?
The Trump administration has said it can deploy other import duties to replace the IEEPA tariffs. Last month, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett told Fox Business that the administration had a plan to re-implement tariffs under different powers, to prepare for a potential ruling against the Trump administration’s reliance on IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs on the U.S.’s trade partners.
“We think that we’re on very strong footing, but we’ve got a backup plan and a backup plan for the backup plan, and we believe that we could put the tariffs that we have under alternative authorities like 301, back into place almost immediately should the supreme court rule against us,” Hassett said, referring to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Section 301 allows the U.S. president to apply country-based tariffs at his or her discretion if the U.S. Trade Representative determines that another country is engaging in unfair foreign trade practices.
Yet Section 301 tariffs bear restrictions and can’t be applied to all foreign imports, according to trade experts. And replacing IEEPA tariffs with substitute levies could also take many months, according to Morgan Stanley analysts.
The Trump administration could also turn to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose duties on trade partners to protect national security, based on an investigation from the Department of Commerce.
Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/supreme-court-rules-against-trumps-tariffs-special-report/
