2026-02-20T20:39:38.264Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
美国最高法院周五推翻了总统唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）实施的大规模紧急关税政策，这一重大裁决可能会重新调整特朗普政府的经济和外交政策议程方向。
这份以6比3票通过的裁决（多数意见中既有保守派也有自由派大法官），有可能打破特朗普重返白宫后，白宫反复突破法律界限、而最高法院在一个个案件中对此予以支持的局面。
但与大多数重大最高法院判决一样，周五的裁决也引发了新的疑问：法院对联邦法律的宽泛解读将如何在实际中影响美国企业、消费者和选民，尤其是在中期选举临近的背景下。
广告反馈（Ad Feedback）
裁决公布数小时后，特朗普在一场充满对抗性的新闻发布会上抨击了多名大法官，并宣布他将依靠其他法律依据继续维持关税政策。
以下是关于这一重磅裁决的关键信息：
自重返白宫以来，特朗普在保守派主导的最高法院获得了显著胜利，包括使其更难被下级法院阻止其议程的判决，以及一系列支持其移民政策和加强行政部门权力集中的重要紧急决策。
2024年，最高法院还裁定特朗普在其第一个任期最后几天的某些行为享有刑事豁免权——这一里程碑式判决被政府在近期案件中频繁引用。
但周五，这一成功局面戛然而止。特朗普提名的两名大法官——尼尔·戈萨奇（Neil Gorsuch）和艾米·科尼·巴雷特（Amy Coney Barrett）——投了反对票。
“我为最高法院的某些成员感到羞耻，”特朗普在白宫愤怒的新闻发布会上表示，称多数派大法官是“国家的耻辱”。
尽管最高法院在去年秋季的口头辩论后就已预示将做出这一判决，但周五的裁决仍是对政府“越权行事”政策的正式否定，强调了联邦法院仍是联邦政府中为数不多有时敢于对总统说“不”的机构之一。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）在其长达21页的意见书中警告称，特朗普政府试图将“对总统关税政策权力的‘变革性扩张’”作为其全球关税的合法性依据，而这一权力的行使“已对更广泛的经济造成了影响”。
然而，称这一裁决是否标志着行政与司法部门关系的重新调整还为时过早。最高法院待审的其他案件中，特朗普胜算渺茫，包括他试图终止出生地公民权和解雇联邦储备委员会成员的努力。
而另一些案件，如他试图解雇其他独立机构领导人的斗争，在最高法院获得了更为有利的受理前景。
视频广告反馈（Video Ad Feedback）
最高法院称特朗普的关税政策违法，接下来会发生什么？
5:11 • 来源：CNN
最高法院称特朗普的关税政策违法，接下来会发生什么？
5:11
法院的裁决不仅可能对经济和外交关系产生重大影响，还可能左右今年的中期选举。
特朗普此前已因史无前例地使用关税政策遭部分共和党人反对。现在，他可能需要国会支持其填补裁决留下的政策空白，例如延长周五宣布的全球关税计划。
这意味着共和党议员将在选举年被迫投票支持进口关税。
“特朗普总统是一位非常老练的谈判者，我希望他能继续成功扩大市场准入，”爱荷华州共和党参议员查克·格拉斯利（Chuck Grassley）在措辞谨慎的声明中表示，“我敦促特朗普政府继续谈判，同时与国会合作确保长期执法措施，以确保爱荷华州的家庭农场主和企业获得更广阔的市场机会和确定性。”
根据最高法院对特朗普关税政策裁决前的最新民调，大多数美国人认为关税总体上对经济有害，多数人支持限制总统设定关税的权力。密尔沃基法学院的民调显示，56%的受访者认为关税损害美国经济。
美国国家公共广播电台（NPR）/美国公共广播公司（PBS）新闻/马利斯特学院的联合民调则显示，民主党人（87%）和独立人士（63%）认为关税对经济有害。
裁决后，特朗普明确表示不会放弃使用关税，但其“备用”法律依据的力度已不如其上任初期，且最高法院此次已关闭了其早期依赖的法律通道。
他最早可能在周二的国情咨文演讲中调整策略。
去年，特朗普在国会联席会议致辞结束后特意与罗伯茨握手。
“再次感谢，”据报道特朗普对首席大法官说，“我不会忘记。”
但预计周二，罗伯茨不太可能得到同样热烈的回应。
最高法院关税裁决的时间安排长期备受猜测。起初，法院加快了案件审理进程，部分市场分析师曾预测可能在12月就会做出裁决，认为如果法院已认定该政策违法，不会允许政府继续收取关税。
最终，法院在听证会后约三个半月才做出判决。
虽然这个时间较为常规，但也恰好与特朗普周二的国情咨文演讲时间重叠。至少有部分大法官将出席，如往年一样坐在前排，表情严肃。
特朗普将在全球媒体关注的舞台上表达对法院的不满，这一行动已立即展开。
“真遗憾，”特朗普在白宫表示，称多数派大法官是“RINOs（党内反建制派）和激进左翼民主党人的傻瓜和走狗”。
他还无端指责，声称投票反对他的大法官可能受到外国势力影响，甚至称自己提名的戈萨奇和巴雷特“令家人蒙羞”。
罗伯茨未回应CNN对特朗普评论的置评请求。
特朗普数月来一直抱怨法院审理缓慢，担心裁决结果不利。
“想想看，我在最高法院等了好几个月来等待关税政策的裁决，”他周四在佐治亚州的演讲中抱怨道，“我等了太久。”
许多大法官通常会回避出席总统国情咨文演讲。已故大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚（Antonin Scalia）曾将国情咨文形容为“幼稚的表演”。
2010年，罗伯茨在阿拉巴马大学对学生表示，虽然他认为“任何人都可以批评最高法院”，但国情咨文的背景可能不是最佳场合。
“一个政府部门成员站在最高法院周围欢呼呼喊的画面，”罗伯茨称，“令人不安。”
特朗普周五表示，最高法院大法官仍被邀请参加演讲，但“勉强”。
“说实话，他们来不来我毫不在意。”
特朗普的关税争议现在将回到下级法院，法官们需解决至少1340亿美元的政府已征收关税的退还流程问题——正如巴雷特在口头辩论中预测的那样，这将是一场“程序混乱”。
然而，法院对此保持沉默，这意味着退款问题将成为白宫与关税反对者之间的主要争议点。
“是时候付出代价了，唐纳德，”民主党加利福尼亚州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）在声明中表示，“这些关税无非是非法敛财，推高物价并伤害工薪家庭，而你却借此破坏长期盟友关系并敲诈勒索。每一分非法所得必须连本带利立即退还。拿出钱来！”
反对特朗普的大法官在意见书中未明确退款流程，但布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）大法官在异议中指出，联邦政府“可能需向已缴纳关税的企业退还数十亿美元”，因为这些企业“可能已将成本转嫁给消费者或其他方”。
近几个月，数十家企业已主动在联邦法院提起诉讼，以确保若法院裁定特朗普败诉，其关税支付可获退还。
其中包括好市多（Costco），其律师在11月向国际贸易法院表示，当月提起的诉讼“确保其获得全额退款的权利不被危及”。
然而，这类诉讼浪潮需要时间处理，可能在数月内无法进入实质性阶段。此外，行政渠道也可能为企业申请关税退款提供途径。
在去年最高法院的口头辩论中，代表部分挑战关税企业的律师引用了数十年前的案例：当时进口商曾通过“行政抗议”追回被法院裁定非法的港口维护税。
“这非常复杂，”律师尼尔·卡塔亚尔（Neal Katyal）向大法官解释道，“退款流程耗时良久。”
尽管法院做出了裁决，特朗普在其经济议程中实施关税的选择并未完全枯竭。
“我们有其他替代方案，”特朗普在白宫回应裁决时表示，“非常好的替代方案。”
卡瓦诺在其异议意见中（与保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯和塞缪尔·阿利托共同签署）强调，其他工具仍可使用。最高法院多数派意见对这些明确赋予总统关税制定权的替代工具未置一词。
“实质上，法院今天认定，总统错误地依赖《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）而非另一项法律来实施这些关税，”卡瓦诺写道。
这些其他关税征收工具虽威力强大，但有时间和范围限制，通常需先进行调查。
“尽管我确信他们并非有意，但最高法院今天的裁决反而使总统制定贸易政策和关税的权力更强大、更明确，而非削弱，”特朗普称，“我认为他们并未想达到此效果。”
特朗普周五宣布将根据《122号贸易法》（Section 122）实施10%的全球关税。根据该法律，他确实拥有广泛的关税制定权，但除非国会延长，否则这些关税只能维持150天。
保守派最高法院曾多次使用“重大问题 doctrine”（Major Questions Doctrine）理论，否决总统拜登未获法律明确授权的政策。周五，罗伯茨和两名保守派大法官本欲用同样理论否决特朗普的关税政策。
该理论的核心是：当涉及重大政治或经济问题时，行政部门基于模糊法律采取行动的空间更小。批评者认为这一理论本质上是“编造”的，难以适用。周五的裁决则表明，保守派大法官仍在探索该理论的具体适用。
裁决书中大量篇幅讨论了大法官之间关于是否及如何适用该 doctrine 的争议。尽管内容技术性较强，但意义重大，因为法院对这一争议的解决方式可能预示未来涉及总统权力案件的走向。
卡瓦诺在批评中写道，该 doctrine 不应适用于涉及总统外交事务议程的案件。
“最高法院此前从未将‘重大问题 doctrine’或类似概念适用于涉外事务法律，”他强调，“我不会让本案成为首个适用该 doctrine 的先例。”
但戈萨奇则认为判决清晰明确：
“无论对国会在其援引的紧急法律中所做的工作有何评价，都未明确将其寻求行使的广泛关税权力拱手让给总统。”
自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根（Elena Kagan）与另外两名自由派大法官一道，驳斥了罗伯茨用“重大问题 doctrine”支持特朗普的做法。
卡根此前曾批评保守派多数派用该 doctrine 阻止总统在环境法规方面的行政行动。同样，她对用该工具否决特朗普关税政策持谨慎态度，尽管她认同判决结果。
“我不需要‘重大问题’ doctrine 作为解释天平上的砝码，”卡根写道，“没有国会明确授权，总统的关税政策就无法成立。”
CNN记者亚当·坎克林（Adam Cancryn）、伊丽莎白·布赫瓦尔德（Elisabeth Buchwald）、阿里尔·爱德华兹-利维（Ariel Edwards-Levy）和蒂尔尼·斯尼德（Tierney Sneed）对此报道有贡献。
https://www.cnn.com/
Takeaways: Supreme Court stands up to Donald Trump on emergency tariffs
2026-02-20T20:39:38.264Z / CNN
The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs on Friday, a significant decision that could redirect the course of the administration’s economic and foreign policy agenda.
The 6-3 decision, which included both conservative and liberal justices in the majority, had the potential to reset the relationship between a White House that has repeatedly pushed legal boundaries and a Supreme Court that has in case after case blessed those efforts since Trump returned to power.
But like most major Supreme Court opinions, the ruling Friday raised new questions about how the court’s broad parsing of federal law would play out in practical terms for American businesses, consumers and voters heading into a midterm election.
Ad Feedback
In a combative news conference hours after the decision, Trump attacked several justices and announced he would rely on other legal authorities to keep tariffs in place.
Here’s what to know about the blockbuster decision:
Since returning to the White House, Trump has racked up an impressive record at the conservative Supreme Court, including a decision that made it harder for lower courts to block his agenda and a series of important emergency decisions blessing his immigration policies and his push to consolidate power within the executive branch.
And in 2024, the court granted the president immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his first term — a landmark decision that the administration continues to regularly cite in recent cases.
But that successful record in major, merits cases came to a crashing halt Friday. Two of the justices he named to the bench during his first – Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – ruled against him.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court,” Trump said in an angry news conference at the White House reacting to the decision, calling the justices in the majority a “disgrace to our nation.”
Even though the court’s decision to strike down Trump’s emergency tariffs was predicted following the oral arguments last fall, the ruling is a formal repudiation of the administration’s push-the-limits approach. It underscored the notion that federal courts are one of the last institutions within the federal government willing – at times –to tell the president “no.”
Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his 21-page opinion that the administration had tried to pitch a “‘transformative expansion’ of the president’s authority over tariff policy” to justify its global tariffs and “as demonstrated by the exercise of that authority in this case — over the broader economy as well.”
But it’s far too soon to say whether the opinion signals a resetting of the relationship between the executive and judicial branches. There are several other cases pending on court’s docket that Trump will have a difficult time winning, including his effort to end birthright citizenship and fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board.
Other cases, including the fight over his push to fire the leaders at other independent agencies, have received a more favorable audience at the Supreme Court.
Video Ad Feedback
The Supreme Court said President Trump’s tariffs are illegal, so what comes next?
5:11 • Source: CNN
The Supreme Court said President Trump’s tariffs are illegal, so what comes next?
5:11
The court’s decision could have enormous consequences not only for the economy and foreign relations but also potentially for this year’s midterm election.
Trump has faced pushback from some Republicans over his unprecedented use of tariffs. Now, he may need Congress to pursue the backup plans he hopes will fill the gap left by the decision. For instance, he will need help from lawmakers to extend a series of global tariffs he announced Friday.
That would put Republican lawmakers on the hook to vote for import duties during an election year.
“President Trump is a very skilled negotiator, and I want him to continue to be successful in expanding market access,” Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said in a carefully worded statement. “I urge the Trump administration to keep negotiating, while also working with Congress to secure longer-term enforcement measures so we can provide expanded market opportunities and certainty for Iowa’s family farmers and businesses.”
Most Americans see tariffs as generally harmful to the economy, according to recent polling conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Trump’s tariff policies, with a majority saying that the president’s authority to set tariffs should be limited. A Marquette Law School poll found that a 56% majority of said that tariffs hurt the US economy.
And a NPR/PBS News /Marist poll found that Democrats (87%) and independents (63%) call tariffs harmful to the economy.
The president made clear after the ruling that he will not back down from attempting to use tariffs. But Trump may now likely have to shift his messaging because his “backup” authorities are not as robust as the one he reached for early in this administration and that the Supreme Court has now shut down.
He’ll have his first real opportunity to do so on Tuesday when he delivers his State of the Union address.
Last year, as Trump made his way off the House floor after delivering his speech to a joint session of Congress, he made a point to shake Roberts’ hand.
“Thank you again,” Trump could be heard telling the chief, months after the court granted him immunity from criminal prosecution. “I won’t forget it.”
Tuesday, Roberts is unlikely to experience a similarly warm reception.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s tariffs decision has long been a point of speculation. Initially, the court expedited the case. Some market analysts predicted the court would rule as soon as December, theorizing that the majority wouldn’t want to allow the administration to continue to collect tariff revenue if it had determined the policy was illegal.
In the end, the court handed down its decision about 3 1/2 months after it heard arguments.
While that timing was fairly standard, it also bumped the decision right up against Trump’s address on Tuesday. At least some justices are expected to attend, as they often do. They will sit in the front row, as in past years, straight faced and still.
Trump, on, will have a global stage on which to air his grievances at the court, an effort that started immediately.
“What a shame,” Trump said at the White House, describing the justices in the majority as “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.”
At one point, Trump suggested, without providing any evidence, that the justices who voted against him may have been influenced by foreign actors. He also said Gorsuch and Barrett – whom he appointed – were an “embarrassment to their families.”
Roberts did not respond to CNN’s request for reaction to Trump’s comments.
Trump had already raged for months over the court’s deliberations, complaining about the possibility that the justices could invalidate the policy. More recently, he complained that the court was taking too long to render a decision.
“To think, I have to be in the United States Supreme Court for many, many months waiting for a decision on tariffs,” he complained during a speech in Georgia on Thursday. “I’ve been waiting forever.”
Many justices have shunned showing up to the presidential address at all. The late Justice Antonin Scalia once described the State of the Union as a “childish spectacle.”
In 2010, Roberts told students at the University of Alabama that while he thought “anybody” can criticize the Supreme Court, the backdrop of the State of the Union might not be the best setting.
“The image of having members of one branch of government standing up literally surrounding the Supreme Court cheering and hollering,” Roberts said, “is troubling.”
Trump said Friday that the justices were still invited to his speech.
“Barely,” he said.
“Honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come.”
The dispute over Trump’s tariffs now heads back to lower courts, where judges will have to figure out how to sort through a repayment process that Justice Amy Coney Barrett predicted would be a procedural “mess.”
It was Barrett’s comment during oral arguments that, partly, had given some hope that the court would signal something about what should happen with the at least $134 billion the government has already collected. Instead, the court was silent.
Because of that silence, refunds will now almost certainly become a leading fight between the White House and the groups opposing the tariffs.
“Time to pay the piper, Donald,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement. “These tariffs were nothing more than an illegal cash grab that drove up prices and hurt working families, so you could wreck longstanding alliances and extort them. Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!””
The justices who ruled against Trump said nothing about how that process could play out. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his dissenting opinion that the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars” to companies that paid the tariffs, noting that those businesses “may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”
In recent months, scores of companies took the proactive step of bringing claims in federal court to ensure that they could recoup tariff payments should the justices rule against Trump.
Among those businesses is Costco, whose lawyers told the Court of International Trade in November that a lawsuit the major wholesaler brought that month was necessary “to ensure that its right to a complete refund is not jeopardized.”
But that flood of litigation is certain to take time and likely won’t proceed in earnest for several more months. It’s also possible that administrative channels are opened up for companies to attempt to obtain refunds over the tariff payments.
During oral arguments at the high court last year, a lawyer for some of the companies challenging Trump’s tariffs pointed to a decades-old case in which importers had the ability to file an “administrative protest” to recoup a harbor maintenance tax that was declared unlawful by the justices.
“It’s a very complicated thing,” the lawyer, Neal Katyal, told the justices. “The refund process took a long time.”
Despite the court’s ruling, Trump isn’t totally out of options when it comes to imposing tariffs as part of his economic agenda.
“We have alternatives,” Trump said at the White House in response to the decision. “Great alternatives.”
Kavanaugh, whose dissenting opinion was joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, emphasized that other tools are available.The court’s majority opinion was silent on those other options, which more clearly provide the president authority to set import duties.
“In essence, the court today concludes that the president checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Those other levers for imposing tariffs, while powerful, come with limitations on timing and scope, often requiring investigations before they can be employed.
“While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear rather than less,” Trump said. “I don’t think they meant that.”
Trump announced Friday that he would enact a 10% global tariff under a trade law known as Section 122. Trump does have broad power to impose tariffs under that law, but those levies can only be in place for a 150 days absent an extension from Congress.
The conservative Supreme Court repeatedly relied on a legal theory, the “major questions doctrine,” to strike down policies implemented by President Joe Biden that were not explicitly authorized in law. On Friday, Roberts and two conservative justices were prepared to rely on that same theory to shut down Trump’s tariffs.
The basic idea is that the executive branch has even less room to take actions based on vague laws when major political or economic questions are at stake. Critics have argued that the theory is largely made up and, because of that, is hard to apply. The opinion Friday underscored that, at the very least, the conservative justices are still working out the specifics of the theory.
Much of the writing in the decision focused on a quarrel between the justices over whether and how to apply the doctrine. Though technical, that is hugely important because how the court resolves that debate could foreshadow the outcome in future cases involving the president’s power.
Kavanaugh, among other criticisms, wrote that the doctrine shouldn’t apply in a case involving a president’s foreign affairs agenda.
“This court has never before applied the major questions doctrine — or anything resembling it — to a foreign affairs statute,” he wrote. “I would not make this case the first.”
But Gorsuch framed the decision as fairly clear cut.
“Whatever else might be said about Congress’s work in” the emergency law Trump was relying on, he wrote, “it did not clearly surrender to the president the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.”
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the two other liberals, rebuffed Roberts’ use of the major questions doctrine to side with Trump.
Kagan has in the past criticized the conservative majority’s use of the major questions doctrine to halt executive actions on environmental regulations. Likewise, she was wary of using that tool to strike down Trump’s tariffs, even though she agreed with the decision to do so.
“I need no major-questions thumb on the interpretive scales,” Kagan wrote. “Without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand.”
CNN’s Adam Cancryn, Elisabeth Buchwald, Ariel Edwards-Levy and Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
https://www.cnn.com/
