联邦司法委员会裁定特朗普关税非法
【中美创新时报2025年5月28日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）美国国际贸易法院表示，总统在全球范围内征收“互惠”关税以及对加拿大和墨西哥征税的行为超越了他的权限。对此，《纽约时报》记者托尼·罗姆和安娜·斯旺森作了下述报道。
周三，一个联邦法官小组阻止了特朗普总统对中国和其他美国贸易伙伴征收部分最高关税，认为联邦法律并未赋予他对来自全球几乎所有国家的进口产品征税的“无限权力”。
美国国际贸易法院的这一裁决给特朗普带来了早期但重大的挫折，削弱了他寻求向其他国家施压以达成对美国更有利的贸易协议的主要筹码。
在特朗普就任之前，从未有总统试图援引1977年颁布的《国际紧急经济权力法》对其他国家征收关税。该法主要涉及贸易禁运和制裁，甚至没有提及关税。
但特朗普对该法的权力进行了一次全新的解读，他于4月宣布对数十个国家征收高额关税，随后又暂停了这些措施。他还利用该法对加拿大和墨西哥的产品征收关税，以报复他所说的这两个国家在向美国运送芬太尼方面所扮演的角色。
周三，负责监督此类事务的主要联邦法律机构——国际贸易法院裁定，特朗普的关税“超出了紧急状态法赋予总统的任何权力”。由三名法官组成的两党小组分别审理了各州和企业提起的案件，裁定特朗普的许多（但并非全部）关税是非法的。
目前尚不清楚何时以及如何停止征收关税。该裁决给予行政部门最多10天时间来完成终止关税的官僚程序。特朗普政府立即向美国联邦巡回上诉法院提交了上诉计划。
目前，这项裁决可能会削弱美国政府在全球范围内达成贸易协定的努力，因为总统正在利用无限关税的前景——未经国会批准，自行制定——作为与大约18个国家谈判的筹码。这些协议仍在谈判中，特朗普的一些高级助手最近几天曾告诉最高法院，不利的裁决可能会危及谈判。
该裁决不影响特朗普政府根据单独法律授权征收的关税，包括对钢铁、铝和汽车征收的关税，以及特朗普威胁对药品、半导体和其他关键产品征收的关税。
白宫发言人库什·德赛（Kush Desai）严厉谴责了法院，他在一份声明中表示，不公平的贸易关系“摧毁了美国社区，抛弃了我们的工人，削弱了我们的国防工业基础——法院对这些事实没有异议”。
他说：“非民选法官无权决定如何妥善应对国家紧急状态。”他还表示，特朗普将“动用一切行政权力来应对这场危机”。
曾在特朗普第一任期内担任国家经济委员会副主任的翰宇律师事务所合伙人埃弗雷特·艾森斯塔特 (Everett Eissenstat) 表示，这一决定“将对总统关税和贸易议程的近期动态产生巨大影响”。
“十多年来，我一直在中国和美国报道经济、贸易和国际关系 ，我的目标是用数据和数字来支持我的工作，并讲述我在报道中遇到的人们的个人故事。”
艾森斯塔特先生补充道：“故事远未结束，但今天标志着其发展历程中的重要篇章。”
司法部律师坚决捍卫特朗普策略的合法性，并多次告诉国际贸易法院，其无权审查总统的行为。
在数周的辩论中，这一立场多次令法官们感到困惑。上周三，以俄勒冈州为首的12个州组成的联盟请求法院发布永久禁令，以暂停特朗普的关税，紧张局势再次升级。
司法部律师布雷特·舒梅特（Brett Shumate）在法庭上表示：“总统发现了紧急情况，并决定了应对措施。”他还补充说，目标是“让我们的贸易伙伴坐到谈判桌前”，并为可能达成的交易创造政治筹码。
“这可能是一个非常棒的计划，但它必须符合法规，”由罗纳德·里根总统提名进入贸易法庭的高级法官简·A·雷斯塔尼回答道。
特朗普援引紧急权力，试图立即征收关税，而无需等待国会采取行动，也无需等待政府编写报告或征求其他贸易法所要求的公众意见。特朗普政府经常以美国巨额贸易逆差为由，为其动用紧急权力征收关税的行为辩护。
美国贸易代表杰米森·格里尔也警告称，法院对美国政府的裁决可能会阻碍美国政府与其他国家进行贸易谈判的努力。
这些协议仍然难以达成。特朗普与中国合作稳步降低关税，同时与英国达成了初步协议。然而，正如特朗普的一位顾问在4月份宣称的那样，特朗普政府距离其“90天内批准90项协议”的目标还很远。
尽管如此，法院的判决对于企业集团和州联盟来说仍然是一次胜利，他们各自起诉特朗普先生超越了其职权范围，导致贸易战并给他们带来巨额经济损失。
本月，包括葡萄酒和烈酒进口商VOS Selections在内的企业在贸易法庭出庭，将特朗普对中国和其他国家征收的高额关税描述为“权力攫取”，并辩称经济紧急状态法并未明确规定总统可以征收关税。他们还质疑特朗普援引该法律的理由，称美国持续数十年的贸易逆差并不构成紧急状态。
代表企业原告的自由司法中心高级法律顾问杰弗里·施瓦布（Jeffrey Schwab）告诉法庭，特朗普的立场实际上允许他“随时以任何税率对任何国家征收关税，只需宣布国家进入紧急状态”。该非营利组织过去与伊利诺伊州实业家、共和党巨额捐款人理查德·尤莱（Richard Uihlein）有联系。
州政府官员还辩称，美国贸易逆差本身并不足以让特朗普动用紧急状态法。俄勒冈州司法部律师布莱恩·马歇尔在法庭上表示，总统试图将该法规作为一种筹码，这种做法本身就是不恰当的。
盛德律师事务所贸易律师泰德·墨菲表示，这项裁决对总统的贸易议程是一个打击，但“不是最终决定”。
他说，除了上诉之外，政府还可能寻求紧急暂缓执行法院的裁决，并可能根据更规范的法律依据启动替代关税。“简而言之，这个故事还没有结束，”墨菲先生说。
题图：特朗普总统戴着一顶白色的“让美国再次伟大”运动的帽子，在停机坪上发表讲话时张开双臂。一排麦克风被推到他面前。图源…肯尼·霍尔斯顿/纽约时报。
附原英文报道：
Trump Tariffs Ruled Illegal by Federal Judicial Panel
The U.S. Court of International Trade said the president had overstepped his authority in imposing his “reciprocal” tariffs globally, as well as levies on Canada and Mexico.
President Trump, wearing a white Make America Great Again cap, spreads his arms while speaking on a tarmac. A series of microphones are thrust toward him.
The U.S. Court of International Trade gave the executive branch up to 10 days to complete the process of halting some of President Trump’s steepest tariffs. Credit…Kenny Holston/The New York Times
By Tony Romm and Ana Swanson
Reporting from Washington
May 28, 2025
Updated 9:52 p.m. ET
A panel of federal judges on Wednesday blocked President Trump from imposing some of his steepest tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, finding that federal law did not grant him “unbounded authority” to tax imports from nearly every country around the world.
The ruling, by the U.S. Court of International Trade, delivered an early yet significant setback to Mr. Trump, undercutting his primary leverage as he looks to pressure other nations into striking trade deals more beneficial to the United States.
Before Mr. Trump took office, no president had sought to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law, to impose tariffs on other nations. The law, which primarily concerns trade embargoes and sanctions, does not even mention tariffs.
But Mr. Trump adopted a novel interpretation of its powers as he announced, and then suspended, high levies on scores of countries in April. He also used the law to impose tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico in return for what he said was their role in sending fentanyl to the United States.
On Wednesday, the Court of International Trade, the primary federal legal body overseeing such matters, found that Mr. Trump’s tariffs “exceed any authority granted” to the president by the emergency powers law. Ruling in separate cases brought by states and businesses, a bipartisan panel of three judges essentially declared many, but not all, of Mr. Trump’s tariffs to have been issued illegally.
It was not clear precisely when and how the tariff collections would grind to a halt. The ruling gave the executive branch up to 10 days to complete the bureaucratic process of ending them. The Trump administration immediately filed its plans to appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
For now, the decision threatens to undercut the administration’s efforts to reach trade agreements globally since the president is using the prospect of boundless tariffs — enacted on his own, without congressional approval — as a bargaining chip in negotiations with roughly 18 countries. Those deals are still under negotiation, and some of Mr. Trump’s top aides had told the court in recent days that an adverse ruling could imperil the talks.
The ruling does not affect tariffs issued by the Trump administration under separate legal authorities, including levies on steel, aluminum and cars, and others that Mr. Trump has threatened on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and other critical products.
A White House spokesman, Kush Desai, sharply rebuked the court, saying in a statement that unfair trade relationships had “decimated American communities, left our workers behind and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” he said, adding that Mr. Trump would use “every lever of executive power to address this crisis.”
Everett Eissenstat, a partner at the law firm Squire Patton Boggs who served as deputy director of the National Economic Council during Mr. Trump’s first term, said the decision “dramatically impacts near-term dynamics surrounding the president’s tariff and trade agenda.”
“I have been reporting on economics, trade and international relations for over a decade, from both China and the U.S. I aim to underpin my work with data and numbers, as well as give voice to the personal stories of people I encounter in my reporting.”
Here’s our latest reporting on economic policy and tariffs.
“The story is far from over, but today marks a significant chapter in its evolution,” Mr. Eissenstat added.
Lawyers for the Justice Department had staunchly defended the legality of Mr. Trump’s strategy, telling the Court of International Trade repeatedly that it had no right to review the president’s actions.
That stance discomfited the judges multiple times over weeks of arguments. The tension arose repeatedly last Wednesday, when a coalition of 12 states, led by Oregon, asked the court to issue a permanent injunction that would halt Mr. Trump’s tariffs.
“The president identified the emergency, and he decided the means to address that emergency,” Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer, told the court. He added that the goal had been to “bring our trading partners to the table” and create political leverage for possible deal-making.
“It may be a very dandy plan, but it has to meet the statute,” replied Senior Judge Jane A. Restani, who was nominated to the trade court by President Ronald Reagan.
By invoking emergency authority, Mr. Trump had sought to impose the tariffs immediately, without waiting for Congress to act or the government to compile reports or request public comments that other trade laws require. Frequently, the Trump administration pointed to the country’s large trade deficit to justify its actions to impose tariffs using emergency authorities.
The U.S. trade representative, Jamieson Greer, also warned that a court ruling against the administration could stymie its efforts to negotiate trade deals with other countries.
Those agreements remain elusive. Mr. Trump has steadily lowered tariff rates in cooperation with China, while striking a tentative bargain with Britain. Yet the administration is far from its goal of ratifying “90 deals in 90 days,” as a Trump adviser proclaimed in April.
The court decision nonetheless was a victory for the group of businesses and the coalition of states that had each sued on the grounds that Mr. Trump had overstepped the authority of his office, resulting in a trade war that had saddled them with steep financial losses.
Appearing at the trade court this month, businesses including VOS Selections, a wine and spirits importer, described Mr. Trump’s steep levies on China and other countries as a “power grab,” arguing that the economic emergency law does not explicitly say the president can impose tariffs. They also disputed Mr. Trump’s rationale for invoking that law, saying the nation’s persistent trade deficit — decades in the making — does not qualify as an emergency.
Jeffrey Schwab, a senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the business plaintiffs, told the court that Mr. Trump’s position essentially would allow him to “impose tariffs on any country at any rate at any time, simply by declaring a national emergency.” The nonprofit has past ties to Richard Uihlein, who is an Illinois industrialist and a Republican megadonor.
State officials also argued that nothing about the U.S. trade deficit merited Mr. Trump’s invocation of the emergency powers law. Brian Marshall, a lawyer at the Oregon Justice Department, told the court that the president had improperly sought to use the statute as a form of leverage anyway.
Ted Murphy, a trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, said the ruling was a blow to the president’s trade agenda but “not the final word.”
In addition to an appeal, he said, the government is likely to seek an emergency stay of the court’s ruling and could begin initiating alternative tariffs under more standard legal authorities. “In short, this story is not finished,” Mr. Murphy said.
