发布时间：2026年2月20日，美国东部时间上午10:03 / 更新时间：2026年2月20日，美国东部时间上午10:25 / 来源：CNN
作者：[约翰·弗里茨]
（注：此处为图片占位符，原文图片链接未提供，按格式保留）
总统唐纳德·特朗普于2025年4月2日在华盛顿特区白宫玫瑰园举行的“让美国再次富裕”贸易公告活动中展示图表。
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
最高法院周五裁定，总统唐纳德·特朗普单方面在全球范围内实施全面关税违反了联邦法律，这对白宫在其外交政策和经济议程核心问题上是一次重大失利。
这一裁决可说是特朗普第二届政府在保守派主导的最高法院遭遇的最重要失利。去年，最高法院在一系列关于移民、解雇独立机构领导人及大幅削减政府开支的紧急裁决中多次支持总统。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨撰写了多数意见，法院以6:3的投票结果裁定关税超出法律权限。然而，法院未说明已征收的超过1300亿美元关税应如何处理。
“总统声称拥有单方面无限额、无限期、无范围地征收关税的非凡权力，”罗伯茨代表法院写道，“鉴于该主张权力的广度、历史和宪法背景，他必须指明明确的国会授权才能行使此权力。”
法院表示，特朗普试图依赖的紧急权力“不足”。
大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特和尼尔·戈萨奇与罗伯茨及三位自由派大法官共同组成多数派。克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托和布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官持异议。
在其意见中，罗伯茨驳斥了政府关于总统有权使用关税调节商业的论点。这一问题在去年的口头辩论中出现，特朗普称总统拥有颁布关税的固有权力。
“当国会授予征收关税的权力时，会明确规定并加以严格限制，”罗伯茨写道，“但此次国会并未如此。”
“我们在经济或外交事务方面并无特殊专长，”罗伯茨继续写道，“我们仅拥有宪法第三条赋予我们的有限角色。履行这一角色，我们认为《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）并未授权总统征收关税。”
退款问题尚无明确结论
6:3的多数派未明确回答如何处理政府已通过特朗普关税征收的资金这一具体实际问题。
根据美国海关与边境保护局（CBP）的数据及该局向美国国际贸易法院提交的最新文件，截至12月14日，联邦政府已从超过301,000家不同进口商的受挑战关税中征收1340亿美元收入。
这一问题可能需要下级法院进一步解决。
异议意见中，布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官指出，法院“今日未就政府是否以及如何返还从进口商处征收的数十亿美元款项作出任何决定”。
退款问题在本案中至关重要，特朗普政府官员称潜在退款可能对美国经济造成毁灭性后果。
“这一过程可能会‘一团糟’，”卡瓦诺写道。
美国经济近年最重要案件
此案是近年来涉及美国经济的最重要案件，挑战了特朗普“解放日”关税及对中国、墨西哥和加拿大进口商品征收的关税合法性。争议焦点是政府已征收的数十亿美元收入。
所谓“互惠”关税对关键贸易伙伴（包括印度和巴西）的关税高达50%，对中国的关税高达145%（2025年数据）。
特朗普及其司法部官员将争议表述为国家存亡问题，称“有了关税，我们是富裕国家；没有关税，我们是贫穷国家”。而挑战这些关税的小企业群体警告称，特朗普的立场代表着“令人震惊的权力主张”——在无国会监督情况下擅自征税。
特朗普援引的是1970年代的《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA），该法允许总统在紧急状态下“管制进口”。政府辩称“关税”一词明确包含在法律中，但小企业指出该法从未出现“tariff”（关税）或“duty”（税）字样。
这为最高法院提出了一系列难题。此前，法院在涉及拜登政府争议性政策的案件中多次裁定：行政部门未经国会明确授权不得单方面采取行动，尤其在涉及“重大”政治或经济问题时。
例如，2023年，保守派多数派依据“重大问题原则”阻止拜登的学生贷款减免计划；2022年，法院叫停拜登针对8400万美国人的疫苗和检测要求，认定国会从未明确授权政府在新冠疫情期间实施此类措施。甚至一些保守派大法官也表示，同样的逻辑应适用于特朗普的关税政策。
特朗普提出多项反驳理由，最主要的是称关税涉及外交事务，法院传统上对行政部门持尊重态度。
总统另有更明确的关税征收权力（无需国会参与），但均附有时间限制等条件，这使得特朗普难以推行“时而提高时而降低贸易壁垒”的谈判策略。
例如，法律另一条款明确允许总统提高关税，但最高仅15%且期限不超过150天；另一授权允许总统出于国家安全原因征收更高关税，但仅针对特定行业且需商务部调查。
所有审查特朗普紧急关税的下级法院均认定其违反联邦法律，但理由各异：
- 在纽约葡萄酒进口商V.O.S. Selections案中，美国国际贸易法院5月裁定IEEPA未授权特朗普的紧急关税，后经华盛顿特区上诉法院确认。
- 伊利诺伊州教育玩具公司Learning Resources在华盛顿联邦地区法院起诉，同样败诉，案件直接跳级至最高法院，未经过DC巡回法院审理。
两案均暂停判决执行，允许政府在上诉期间继续征收关税。
最高法院辩论关键细节
11月5日的口头辩论中，三位自由派大法官似乎倾向于支持小企业。保守派多数派大法官发出混合信号，罗伯茨和艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官向双方提出尖锐问题。
争议焦点之一是：若法院裁定特朗普政府越权，所有企业是否有权获得关税退款。
进口商（包括好市多）请求初步禁令以阻止CBP完成关税清算（即最终付款确认程序），称未清算状态是未来退款的必要前提。但该请求被驳回。
三法官小组解释称，判决依据是政府承诺即使在清算完成后仍可能退还IEEPA关税款项，尽管这一过程可能“耗时费力”。
本报道持续更新中
（注：原文最后一段“This story is breaking and will be updated.”为新闻更新提示，保留格式）
Supreme Court rules that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal
Published Feb 20, 2026, 10:03 AM ET / Updated Feb 20, 2026, 10:25 AM ET / Source: CNN
By [John Fritze]
President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he unilaterally imposed sweeping tariffs across the globe, a striking loss for the White House on an issue that has been central to the president’s foreign policy and economic agenda.
The decision is arguably the most important loss the second Trump administration has sustained at the conservative Supreme Court, which last year repeatedly sided with the president in a series of emergency rulings on immigration, the firing of the leaders of independent agencies and deep cuts to government spending.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and the court agreed 6-3 that the tariffs exceeded the law. The court, however, did not say what should happen to the more than $130 billion in tariffs that has already been collected.
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote for the court. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
The emergency authority Trump attempted to rely on, the court said, “falls short.”
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined with Roberts and the three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
In his opinion, Roberts brushed aside an argument from the administration that the president had power to use tariffs to regulate commerce. That was an issue that came up during the oral arguments last year as Trump suggested the president had inherent authority to issue the tariffs.
“When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints,” Roberts wrote. “It did neither here.”
“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” Roberts wrote. “We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”
No clarity on returning money
The 6-3 majority offered no clarity on the specific practical question of what to do with the money the administration has already collected through Trump’s tariffs.
As of December 14, the federal government has collected $134 billion in revenue from the tariffs being challenged from over 301,000 different importers, according to United States Customs and Border Protection data as well as a recent filing submitted by the agency to the US Court of International Trade.
That question will likely need to be sorted out by lower courts.
In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the court said “nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”
The issue of refunds has loomed large over the case, with Trump administration officials saying that potential repayments could have devastating consequences for the US economy.
“That process is likely to be a ‘mess,’” Kavanaugh wrote.
Most significant case on US economy in years
The case was the most significant involving the American economy to reach the Supreme Court in years, challenging the legality of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, as well as duties he imposed on imports from China, Mexico and Canada. At stake were tens of billions of dollars in revenue the government has already collected.
The so-called “reciprocal” tariffs raised duties as high as 50% on key trading partners, including India and Brazil, and as high as 145% on China in 2025.
Trump and Justice Department officials framed the dispute in existential terms for the country, telling the justices that “with tariffs, we are a rich nation” but that without them, “we are a poor nation.” A group of small businesses who challenged the duties similarly warned that Trump’s position represented a “breathtaking assertion of power” to effectively levy a tax without oversight from Congress.
Trump has relied on a 1970s-era emergency law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to levy the import duties at issue in the case. That law allows a president to “regulate … importation” during emergencies. The administration argued the word plainly includes the power to impose tariffs, but the businesses noted that the words “tariff” or “duty” never appear in the law.
That raised a series of difficult questions for the Supreme Court itself, which in case after case involving controversial policies from President Joe Biden, ruled that an administration cannot take certain executive actions unilaterally without explicit authorization from Congress. That is particularly true, the court repeatedly ruled, when policies involve “major” political or economic questions.
In 2023, for instance, the conservative majority relied on the “major questions doctrine” to block Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. A year earlier, the court stopped Biden’s vaccine and testing requirement for 84 million Americans, concluding that Congress never explicitly gave the government the power to demand those measures during the Covid-19 pandemic. Even some conservatives said the same logic should apply when it came to Trump’s tariffs.
Trump offered several counter arguments, most notably that the tariffs implicate foreign affairs, where courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch.
The president has other – more established authorities – to levy tariffs without input from Congress. But each of those come with strings attached, such as time limits, that would make it harder for Trump to pursue his on-again-off-again strategy of raising and then lowering barriers as a negotiating tactic.
Another provision of law, for instance, clearly allows a president to raise tariffs — but only up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days. Another authority gives the president the power to impose higher tariffs for national security reasons. It can only be used to target specific industries and requires an investigation by the Commerce Department.
Every lower court that has reviewed Trump’s emergency tariffs found they violated federal law, though for different reasons. In one case, led by a New York-based wine importer called V.O.S. Selections, the US Court of International Trade concluded in May that IEEPA didn’t authorize Trump’s emergency duties. That decision was affirmed months later by an appeals court in Washington, DC.
In a separate case, an Illinois-based educational toy company, Learning Resources, sued in a federal district court in Washington, which also ruled against Trump. The case quickly went to the Supreme Court, leapfrogging the DC Circuit.
The courts in both cases put their rulings on hold temporarily, allowing the administration to continue to collect the tariffs while the appeals played out.
During oral arguments at the Supreme Court on November 5, the court’s three liberal justices appeared prepared to side with the businesses. Several members of the court’s conservative supermajority gave mixed signals of how they may ultimately rule, with Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett asking difficult questions of both the businesses and the Trump administration.
A significant question looming over the arguments was whether all businesses would be entitled to tariff payment refunds if the justices rule against the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs.
The filing was in response to a group of importers, including Costco, requesting a preliminary injunction to prevent CBP from finalizing their tariff payments, a process formally known as liquidation. The importers argued that it was imperative for their payments to be unliquidated to get refunds down the road. Their request for a preliminary injunction was denied, however.
The three-panel judge explained that their verdict was supported by the administration’s promise to refund IEEPA tariff payments, if it came down to it, even if entries were liquidated. However, the administration has stated that it would likely be a laborious process.
This story is breaking and will be updated.