+Follow
yihang1122
No personal profile
5
Follow
1
Followers
0
Topic
0
Badge
Posts
Hot
yihang1122
2025-11-06
If you Makequtians...toTupo，Please tell me。
U.S. Supreme Court public hearing, justices of all factions expressed doubts, Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" are in jeopardy
Go to Tiger App to see more news
{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"4207127667828232","uuid":"4207127667828232","gmtCreate":1744024486421,"gmtModify":1745322950261,"name":"yihang1122","pinyin":"yihang1122","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":1,"headSize":5,"tweetSize":13,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":0,"accountStatus":0,"level":{"id":0,"name":"","nameTw":"","represent":"","factor":"","iconColor":"","bgColor":""},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2025.10.24","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-1","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Elite Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 30","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2025.10.24","exceedPercentage":"60.96%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2025.04.30","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":3,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":1,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"hot","tweets":[{"id":497158790620064,"gmtCreate":1762399113978,"gmtModify":1762400413375,"author":{"id":"4207127667828232","authorId":"4207127667828232","name":"yihang1122","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4207127667828232","idStr":"4207127667828232"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"If you Makequtians...toTupo，Please tell me。","listText":"If you Makequtians...toTupo，Please tell me。","text":"If you Makequtians...toTupo，Please tell me。","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/497158790620064","repostId":"1137574364","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137574364","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1762389618,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1137574364?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2025-11-06 08:40","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"U.S. Supreme Court public hearing, justices of all factions expressed doubts, Trump's \"reciprocal tariffs\" are in jeopardy","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137574364","media":"华尔街见闻","summary":"决定特朗普政府今年所宣布大多数关税命运的时刻来了。据央视新闻，当地时间11月5日周三，美国最高法院就美国总统特朗普大规模征收关税的合法性展开辩论。据央视新闻，今年5月28日，设在纽约的美国国际贸易法院3人合议庭就小企业主和美国12州所提诉讼裁定，特朗普无权援引IEEPA征收上述关税。两位特朗普任命大法官表达强烈质疑特朗普政府辩称，其关税行为依据的是IEEPA。","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>Several justices from different factions expressed high skepticism about the president's authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. According to the media, given the ultra-fast hearing process currently adopted by the Supreme Court, a ruling could be made as soon as the end of this year. Even if the Trump administration loses the case, there is still uncertainty in the follow-up, including whether the tariffs already paid will be refunded.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The moment to determine the fate of most of the tariffs the Trump administration has announced this year has come. According to CCTV News, on Wednesday, November 5, local time, the U.S. Supreme Court argued the legality of U.S. President Trump's large-scale tariff imposition.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointees, Justices Amy Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, both raised sharp questions about the Trump administration's position during the hours-long heated debate. All three conservative justices questioned the legality of the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tens of billions of dollars in monthly tariffs, signaling that a final ruling could sway Trump's signature economic policies.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of Trump's emergency tariff policy, the media concluded, and several conservative justices dismissed many of the administration's main arguments to defend import tariffs. The overall rhythm suggests that at least a majority of the judges have reservations about the government relying on declaring an emergency to impose unlimited global tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It should be noted that,<strong>Even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the Trump administration, how to unwind this complicated tariff system is fraught with challenges. Justice Amy Barrett bluntly said the process \"could be a mess,\" with outstanding questions including whether tariffs already paid would be refunded and whether Congress would pass retroactive legislation to legalize those tariffs.</strong></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In addition, the Supreme Court will not rule on this case this Wednesday after the prosecution and defense lawyers have made separate statements and been questioned by the judge. The court did not announce when it will release its ruling. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June next year, or possibly sooner, the media said.<strong>Given the ultra-fast hearing process currently undertaken by the Supreme Court, a ruling could come as soon as the end of the year.</strong></p><p><h2 id=\"id_576480910\">Trump warns: This is America's 'life and death' moment</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Central to the dispute in this case is whether it is legal for Trump to invoke IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all trading partners, a law that gives the president the power to \"regulate\" imports during a state of emergency but does not explicitly authorize tariffs. Trump warned on Tuesday that the case was a \"life or death\" moment for the United States, and that a ruling against him could have \"catastrophic\" consequences for the country's economic health. The plaintiff companies say that erratic tariff policies have made costs and uncertainty unbearable.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If it loses, the Trump administration will have to rely on other more restricted tariff laws and could face tens of billions of dollars in refunds. U.S. Treasury Secretary David Basent previously warned in court filings that the U.S. may need to return at least $750 billion if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs are illegal and delays issuing a ruling until next summer.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This case is also a major test of the boundaries of presidential power. According to CCTV News, on May 28 this year, a three-member panel of the U.S. International Trade Court in New York ruled in a lawsuit filed by small business owners and 12 states in the United States that Trump had no right to invoke IEEPA to impose the above tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has since heard the Trump administration's appeal and voted 7-4 on Aug. 29 to uphold the original ruling, but at the same time announced that the ruling would not take effect until Oct. 14 so that the Trump administration could appeal to the Supreme Court.</p><p><h2 id=\"28460104\">Chief Justice Questions Government's Core Argument</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chief Justice Roberts challenged the key precedent on which the Trump administration relied early in the argument. He reported to Attorney General D., the lead attorney representing the Trump administration. John Sauer pressured, pointing out that the Dames & Moore v. Regan case, which the government focused on citing, involved different provisions and \"certainly did not involve tariffs\". Roberts worked as an associate to Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion, and knew the case well.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Roberts further emphasized Congress's \"core authority\" on taxes, refuting the administration's claim that tariffs are not taxes. \"Taxation tools have always been the core power of Congress, and letting the diplomatic power of the president override this fundamental power of Congress would, in my opinion, at least cancel out two powers — executive and legislative,\" Roberts said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The plaintiff businesses challenging Trump's tariffs noted that it was U.S. taxpayers, not foreign companies, who ultimately paid for the tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Roberts also expressed concern about the foreign policy implications of tariffs. Questioning Neal Katyal, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, Roberts said the tariffs \"very directly involve the diplomatic authority of the president\" and that Trump's tariffs were \"quite effective\" in achieving specific goals of the president. This position is close to the administration's view that the president has broad powers in foreign affairs.</p><p><h2 id=\"f482cfaa\">Two Trump appointees voice strong doubts</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Trump administration has argued that it relies on the IEEPA for its tariff actions. The law gives the president a range of means to respond to national security, diplomatic or economic emergencies. While the IEEPA does not explicitly mention \"imposing tariffs,” there is a provision that allows the president to\" regulate” the \"import” of finances in response to the crisis.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Justice Barrett, a Trump appointee, expressed strong doubts about the aforementioned government arguments. She asked Sauer: \"Can you point out that at any other provision in the IEEPA or at any other time in history there have been expressions like 'regulate imports' used to give authority to impose tariffs?\" Barrett pressed on as Sauer was vague.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Barrett also questioned why all countries were subject to \"reciprocal tariffs\". She asked Sauer, \"Do you think every country needs to be tariffed because of the threat to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? Certain countries I can understand, but please explain to me why so many countries need to be tariffed with reciprocal tariffs.\" Sauer argued that reciprocal tariffs were intentionally designed to be broad \"because the emergency is so broad.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Justice Gorsuch, also a Trump appointee, pressured Sauer over Congressional authorization to the president. Gorsuch, who has long advocated the \"non-delegation doctrine\" aimed at maintaining a clear line between Congress and the president's powers, is alarmed by the Trump administration's claims that Congress has delegated tariff constitutional authority to the president.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gorsuch asked if Congress could authorize the constitutional power to impose tariffs, what else could it authorize, whether it could authorize the power to declare war. He asked Sauer: \"In the logic of the administration, why can't Congress give the president all the power to regulate foreign trade — even the power to declare war?\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gorsuch further questioned: \"What happens when the president vetoes legislation to reclaim these powers? In fact, once Congress surrenders power, it can't be reclaimed. This is a one-way mechanism of gradual but continuous concentration of power to the executive branch.\"</p><p><h2 id=\"id_913039233\">Another Trump appointee believes there is precedent for empowering the president to impose tariffs in emergencies</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another Trump appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, challenged the claim that Trump's tariffs were \"unprecedented\".</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regarding one of the historical precedents cited by the Trump administration — former President Richard Nixon had been allowed by the court to impose tariffs under its predecessor, the judge repeatedly emphasized that lower courts had allowed Nixon to impose a \"10 percent global tax on all imports\" on the United States under similar laws during his administration, a historical reference that suggested that Congress intended to give the president \"the tools to respond to emergencies in an appropriate manner.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Questioning the plaintiff side, Neal Katyal, attorney representing the business and state government challenging the tariffs, Kavanaugh pointed out why Congress did not amend the wording of the IEEPA if its purpose was to limit the power of tariff increases. Katyal argued that IEEPA should not be seen as a response to Nixon's previous tariff actions.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Kavanaugh also pushed back on the argument that a bill must contain the word \"tariff\" to grant the president the power to impose tariffs.</p><p><h2 id=\"26626c86\">Government's top lawyer highlights emergency mandate</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In his opening remarks, Attorney General Sauer, who represents the Trump administration, said that Trump's tariffs helped the president strike important trade deals to boost the U.S. economy and that the IEEPA gave the president \"significant authority\" to deal with \"significant issues.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sauer maintains that \"these are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-generating tariffs\" and that \"they generate revenue only incidentally\". But liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered: \"You say tariffs are not taxes, but they are. They generate income from American citizens.\" She noted that no president other than Trump has ever used the law to impose tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the face of doubts from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sauer engaged in a fierce confrontation. \"Congress is clearly trying to limit the president's emergency powers through the IEEPA. Therefore, it seems inconsistent to interpret a law intended to constrain the president's powers as Congress wants the president to have essentially unlimited powers,\" Jackson emphasized.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sauer also faces questions from conservative justices about the president's right to declare a state of emergency. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed to insinuate Trump's repeated declarations of emergencies this year: \"You think the declaration of emergencies is non-reviewable. In fact, we recently dealt with the presidential emergency powers case and found that we have been in an emergency — always, involving about half the world.\"</p><p><h2 id=\"9a99a927\">Plaintiffs'lawyers emphasize constitutional separation of powers</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Katyal, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, opened his statement by saying directly: \"Tariffs are taxes. Our founding fathers gave the right to collect taxes to Congress alone.\" \"We believe that IEEPA does not allow the undermining of the global tariff architecture,\" he said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Katyal pointed out that the administration argued that reciprocal tariffs were used to address the trade deficit, but the U.S. maintained a trade surplus with Switzerland while Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Switzerland, a U.S. ally. \"No other president has ever done anything like this,\" he said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The tariffs imposed by Trump have a benchmark rate of 10% on many countries and as much as 50% on goods from India and Brazil. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a bipartisan research organization in the United States, estimates that if the tariffs are maintained, they will generate $3 trillion in additional revenue for the United States by 2035. In the second half of fiscal 2025, the federal government collected $151 billion in tariffs, the group said last week, \"an increase of nearly 300% from the same period in fiscal 2024.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Conservative Justices Thomas and Alito asked hypothetical questions in an attempt to explore the potential implications of limiting presidential power. Thomas asked if the president could impose tariffs as bargaining chip if the nation's main trading partners were holding American citizens hostage. Alito, for his part, asked if the president could impose tariffs on enemy countries about to go to war with the United States. Katyal replied no, because tariffs are revenue-generating acts like taxes.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Supreme Court is currently hearing three cases challenging Trump's tariffs: two by small businesses and another by a combination of 12 Democratic state attorneys general. In three previous federal district courts, judges ruled that Trump's tariffs were illegal. U.S. Treasury Secretary Vincent appeared at Wednesday's trial at Trump's request. \"I'm there to emphasize that this is an economic emergency,\" he said earlier this week.</p><p></body></html></p>","source":"lsy1762389672944","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. Supreme Court public hearing, justices of all factions expressed doubts, Trump's \"reciprocal tariffs\" are in jeopardy</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. Supreme Court public hearing, justices of all factions expressed doubts, Trump's \"reciprocal tariffs\" are in jeopardy\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">华尔街见闻</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2025-11-06 08:40</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>Several justices from different factions expressed high skepticism about the president's authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. According to the media, given the ultra-fast hearing process currently adopted by the Supreme Court, a ruling could be made as soon as the end of this year. Even if the Trump administration loses the case, there is still uncertainty in the follow-up, including whether the tariffs already paid will be refunded.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The moment to determine the fate of most of the tariffs the Trump administration has announced this year has come. According to CCTV News, on Wednesday, November 5, local time, the U.S. Supreme Court argued the legality of U.S. President Trump's large-scale tariff imposition.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointees, Justices Amy Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, both raised sharp questions about the Trump administration's position during the hours-long heated debate. All three conservative justices questioned the legality of the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tens of billions of dollars in monthly tariffs, signaling that a final ruling could sway Trump's signature economic policies.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of Trump's emergency tariff policy, the media concluded, and several conservative justices dismissed many of the administration's main arguments to defend import tariffs. The overall rhythm suggests that at least a majority of the judges have reservations about the government relying on declaring an emergency to impose unlimited global tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It should be noted that,<strong>Even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the Trump administration, how to unwind this complicated tariff system is fraught with challenges. Justice Amy Barrett bluntly said the process \"could be a mess,\" with outstanding questions including whether tariffs already paid would be refunded and whether Congress would pass retroactive legislation to legalize those tariffs.</strong></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In addition, the Supreme Court will not rule on this case this Wednesday after the prosecution and defense lawyers have made separate statements and been questioned by the judge. The court did not announce when it will release its ruling. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June next year, or possibly sooner, the media said.<strong>Given the ultra-fast hearing process currently undertaken by the Supreme Court, a ruling could come as soon as the end of the year.</strong></p><p><h2 id=\"id_576480910\">Trump warns: This is America's 'life and death' moment</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Central to the dispute in this case is whether it is legal for Trump to invoke IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all trading partners, a law that gives the president the power to \"regulate\" imports during a state of emergency but does not explicitly authorize tariffs. Trump warned on Tuesday that the case was a \"life or death\" moment for the United States, and that a ruling against him could have \"catastrophic\" consequences for the country's economic health. The plaintiff companies say that erratic tariff policies have made costs and uncertainty unbearable.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If it loses, the Trump administration will have to rely on other more restricted tariff laws and could face tens of billions of dollars in refunds. U.S. Treasury Secretary David Basent previously warned in court filings that the U.S. may need to return at least $750 billion if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs are illegal and delays issuing a ruling until next summer.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This case is also a major test of the boundaries of presidential power. According to CCTV News, on May 28 this year, a three-member panel of the U.S. International Trade Court in New York ruled in a lawsuit filed by small business owners and 12 states in the United States that Trump had no right to invoke IEEPA to impose the above tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has since heard the Trump administration's appeal and voted 7-4 on Aug. 29 to uphold the original ruling, but at the same time announced that the ruling would not take effect until Oct. 14 so that the Trump administration could appeal to the Supreme Court.</p><p><h2 id=\"28460104\">Chief Justice Questions Government's Core Argument</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chief Justice Roberts challenged the key precedent on which the Trump administration relied early in the argument. He reported to Attorney General D., the lead attorney representing the Trump administration. John Sauer pressured, pointing out that the Dames & Moore v. Regan case, which the government focused on citing, involved different provisions and \"certainly did not involve tariffs\". Roberts worked as an associate to Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion, and knew the case well.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Roberts further emphasized Congress's \"core authority\" on taxes, refuting the administration's claim that tariffs are not taxes. \"Taxation tools have always been the core power of Congress, and letting the diplomatic power of the president override this fundamental power of Congress would, in my opinion, at least cancel out two powers — executive and legislative,\" Roberts said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The plaintiff businesses challenging Trump's tariffs noted that it was U.S. taxpayers, not foreign companies, who ultimately paid for the tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Roberts also expressed concern about the foreign policy implications of tariffs. Questioning Neal Katyal, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, Roberts said the tariffs \"very directly involve the diplomatic authority of the president\" and that Trump's tariffs were \"quite effective\" in achieving specific goals of the president. This position is close to the administration's view that the president has broad powers in foreign affairs.</p><p><h2 id=\"f482cfaa\">Two Trump appointees voice strong doubts</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Trump administration has argued that it relies on the IEEPA for its tariff actions. The law gives the president a range of means to respond to national security, diplomatic or economic emergencies. While the IEEPA does not explicitly mention \"imposing tariffs,” there is a provision that allows the president to\" regulate” the \"import” of finances in response to the crisis.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Justice Barrett, a Trump appointee, expressed strong doubts about the aforementioned government arguments. She asked Sauer: \"Can you point out that at any other provision in the IEEPA or at any other time in history there have been expressions like 'regulate imports' used to give authority to impose tariffs?\" Barrett pressed on as Sauer was vague.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Barrett also questioned why all countries were subject to \"reciprocal tariffs\". She asked Sauer, \"Do you think every country needs to be tariffed because of the threat to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? Certain countries I can understand, but please explain to me why so many countries need to be tariffed with reciprocal tariffs.\" Sauer argued that reciprocal tariffs were intentionally designed to be broad \"because the emergency is so broad.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Justice Gorsuch, also a Trump appointee, pressured Sauer over Congressional authorization to the president. Gorsuch, who has long advocated the \"non-delegation doctrine\" aimed at maintaining a clear line between Congress and the president's powers, is alarmed by the Trump administration's claims that Congress has delegated tariff constitutional authority to the president.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gorsuch asked if Congress could authorize the constitutional power to impose tariffs, what else could it authorize, whether it could authorize the power to declare war. He asked Sauer: \"In the logic of the administration, why can't Congress give the president all the power to regulate foreign trade — even the power to declare war?\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gorsuch further questioned: \"What happens when the president vetoes legislation to reclaim these powers? In fact, once Congress surrenders power, it can't be reclaimed. This is a one-way mechanism of gradual but continuous concentration of power to the executive branch.\"</p><p><h2 id=\"id_913039233\">Another Trump appointee believes there is precedent for empowering the president to impose tariffs in emergencies</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another Trump appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, challenged the claim that Trump's tariffs were \"unprecedented\".</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regarding one of the historical precedents cited by the Trump administration — former President Richard Nixon had been allowed by the court to impose tariffs under its predecessor, the judge repeatedly emphasized that lower courts had allowed Nixon to impose a \"10 percent global tax on all imports\" on the United States under similar laws during his administration, a historical reference that suggested that Congress intended to give the president \"the tools to respond to emergencies in an appropriate manner.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Questioning the plaintiff side, Neal Katyal, attorney representing the business and state government challenging the tariffs, Kavanaugh pointed out why Congress did not amend the wording of the IEEPA if its purpose was to limit the power of tariff increases. Katyal argued that IEEPA should not be seen as a response to Nixon's previous tariff actions.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Kavanaugh also pushed back on the argument that a bill must contain the word \"tariff\" to grant the president the power to impose tariffs.</p><p><h2 id=\"26626c86\">Government's top lawyer highlights emergency mandate</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In his opening remarks, Attorney General Sauer, who represents the Trump administration, said that Trump's tariffs helped the president strike important trade deals to boost the U.S. economy and that the IEEPA gave the president \"significant authority\" to deal with \"significant issues.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sauer maintains that \"these are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-generating tariffs\" and that \"they generate revenue only incidentally\". But liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered: \"You say tariffs are not taxes, but they are. They generate income from American citizens.\" She noted that no president other than Trump has ever used the law to impose tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the face of doubts from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sauer engaged in a fierce confrontation. \"Congress is clearly trying to limit the president's emergency powers through the IEEPA. Therefore, it seems inconsistent to interpret a law intended to constrain the president's powers as Congress wants the president to have essentially unlimited powers,\" Jackson emphasized.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sauer also faces questions from conservative justices about the president's right to declare a state of emergency. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed to insinuate Trump's repeated declarations of emergencies this year: \"You think the declaration of emergencies is non-reviewable. In fact, we recently dealt with the presidential emergency powers case and found that we have been in an emergency — always, involving about half the world.\"</p><p><h2 id=\"9a99a927\">Plaintiffs'lawyers emphasize constitutional separation of powers</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Katyal, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, opened his statement by saying directly: \"Tariffs are taxes. Our founding fathers gave the right to collect taxes to Congress alone.\" \"We believe that IEEPA does not allow the undermining of the global tariff architecture,\" he said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Katyal pointed out that the administration argued that reciprocal tariffs were used to address the trade deficit, but the U.S. maintained a trade surplus with Switzerland while Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Switzerland, a U.S. ally. \"No other president has ever done anything like this,\" he said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The tariffs imposed by Trump have a benchmark rate of 10% on many countries and as much as 50% on goods from India and Brazil. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a bipartisan research organization in the United States, estimates that if the tariffs are maintained, they will generate $3 trillion in additional revenue for the United States by 2035. In the second half of fiscal 2025, the federal government collected $151 billion in tariffs, the group said last week, \"an increase of nearly 300% from the same period in fiscal 2024.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Conservative Justices Thomas and Alito asked hypothetical questions in an attempt to explore the potential implications of limiting presidential power. Thomas asked if the president could impose tariffs as bargaining chip if the nation's main trading partners were holding American citizens hostage. Alito, for his part, asked if the president could impose tariffs on enemy countries about to go to war with the United States. Katyal replied no, because tariffs are revenue-generating acts like taxes.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Supreme Court is currently hearing three cases challenging Trump's tariffs: two by small businesses and another by a combination of 12 Democratic state attorneys general. In three previous federal district courts, judges ruled that Trump's tariffs were illegal. U.S. Treasury Secretary Vincent appeared at Wednesday's trial at Trump's request. \"I'm there to emphasize that this is an economic emergency,\" he said earlier this week.</p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3758755\">华尔街见闻</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c3d3683e954b684b5874a2bcb621fbb1","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3758755","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137574364","content_text":"来自不同派别的多位大法官均对总统是否有权单方面征收关税表达了高度怀疑。据媒体，鉴于最高院目前采取的超快速审理程序，裁决最快可能在今年年底前作出。而即使特朗普政府败诉，后续依然存在不确定性，包括已经支付的关税是否会退还等。决定特朗普政府今年所宣布大多数关税命运的时刻来了。据央视新闻，当地时间11月5日周三，美国最高法院就美国总统特朗普大规模征收关税的合法性展开辩论。在长达数小时的激烈辩论中，首席大法官John Roberts和特朗普任命的大法官Amy Barrett、Neil Gorsuch均对特朗普政府的立场提出尖锐质疑。这三位保守派大法官都质疑特朗普政府使用1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）每月征收数百亿美元关税的合法性，传出最终裁决可能动摇特朗普标志性经济政策的信号。媒体总结称，最高法院的多数法官似乎对特朗普的紧急关税政策持怀疑态度，几位保守派大法官驳斥了政府为进口关税辩护的诸多主要论点。整体节奏表明，至少多数法官对政府依靠宣布紧急状态实施无限制的全球性关税持保留意见。需要注意的是，即使最高法院最终裁定特朗普政府败诉，如何解除这一复杂的关税体系也充满了挑战。大法官Amy Barrett直言，这一过程“可能是一团糟”，未决的问题包括已经支付的关税是否会退还，以及国会是否会通过追溯性立法来使这些关税合法化。此外，在控辩双方律师各自陈词并接受法官质询后，最高法院本周三不会就本案作出裁决，法院并未宣布何时公布裁决。媒体称，最高院预计在明年6月底前做出裁决，也可能更早。鉴于最高院目前采取的超快速审理程序，裁决最快可能在今年年底前作出。特朗普警告：这是美国“生死攸关”时刻本案的核心争议在于，特朗普援引IEEPA对几乎所有贸易伙伴征收关税是否合法，该法律赋予总统在紧急状态下“规范”进口的权力，但并未明确授权征收关税。特朗普本周二警告，本案对美国而言是“生死攸关”的时刻，若裁决对他不利，可能对国家的经济健康造成“灾难性”的后果。原告公司则表示，反复无常的关税政策已经让成本和不确定性达到难以承受的地步。如果败诉，特朗普政府将不得不依赖其他受限更多的关税法律，且可能面临数百亿美元的退款要求。美国财政部长贝森特此前在法庭文件中警告，如果最高法院裁定关税非法并推迟至明年夏天发布裁决，美国可能需要退还至少7500亿美元。本案也是对总统权力边界的重大考验。据央视新闻，今年5月28日，设在纽约的美国国际贸易法院3人合议庭就小企业主和美国12州所提诉讼裁定，特朗普无权援引IEEPA征收上述关税。美国联邦巡回上诉法院此后审理特朗普政府所提上诉，并于8月29日以7比4的投票结果维持原裁决，但同时宣布裁决在10月14日之前不会生效，以便特朗普政府向最高法院提起上诉。首席大法官质疑政府核心论据首席大法官Roberts在辩论早期就对特朗普政府依赖的关键先例提出质疑。他向代表特朗普政府的首席律师、总检察长D. John Sauer施压，指出政府重点援引的Dames & Moore v. Regan案涉及不同条款，\"肯定不涉及关税\"。Roberts当年曾担任撰写该案意见书的大法官William Rehnquist的助理，对此案了如指掌。Roberts进一步强调国会在税收方面的“核心权力”，驳斥政府关于关税不是税收的说法。Roberts说：“征税工具始终是国会的核心权力，让总统的外交权力压倒国会这一基本权力，在我看来至少会使两种权力——行政权和立法权——相互抵消。”挑战特朗普关税的原告企业指出，最终为关税买单的是美国纳税人，而不是国外公司。Roberts同时对关税的外交政策影响表示关切。在质询原告代表律师Neal Katyal时，Roberts表示，关税“非常直接地涉及总统的外交权力”，特朗普的关税在实现总统特定目标方面\"相当有效\"。这一立场与政府关于总统在外交事务中拥有广泛权力的观点接近。两位特朗普任命大法官表达强烈质疑特朗普政府辩称，其关税行为依据的是IEEPA。该法赋予总统一系列手段应对国家安全、外交或经济紧急情况。虽然IEEPA并未明确提及“征收关税”，但其中有一个条款允许总统为应对危机而“规范”对财务的“进口”。特朗普任命的大法官Barrett对上述政府论据表达强烈怀疑。她问Sauer：“你能否指出，在IEEPA中其他任何条款或历史上其他任何时候，有‘规范进口’这样的表述被用来赋予征收关税的权力？”当Sauer含糊其辞时，Barrett继续追问。Barrett还质疑为何所有国家都被征收“对等关税”。她向Sauer发问：“你是否认为每个国家都需要被征收关税，因为对国防和工业基础构成威胁？我是说，西班牙、法国？某些国家我能理解，但请向我解释为什么如此多国家需要被征收对等关税。”Sauer辩称，对等关税故意设计得很广泛是“因为紧急状态如此广泛”。同为特朗普任命的大法官Gorsuch则就国会向总统授权问题向Sauer施压。Gorsuch长期主张“非授权原则”，旨在保持国会与总统权力的明确界限，他对特朗普政府声称国会已将关税宪权授予总统的主张表示警觉。Gorsuch提问，如果国会可以授权征收关税的宪法权力，那还能授权其他什么，能否授权宣战权。他问Sauer： “按照政府的逻辑，国会又凭什么不能把监管对外贸易的全部权力——甚至连宣战权——都交给总统？”Gorsuch进一步质疑：“总统否决立法收回这些权力会怎样？实际上国会一旦交出权力就无法收回，这是权力向行政部门逐渐但持续集中的单向机制。”另一特朗普任命大法官认为已有赋权总统紧急情况下征关税先例另一特朗普任命的大法官Brett Kavanaugh则是对特朗普关税“前所未有”的说法提出了质疑。对于特朗普政府提到的历史先例之一——前总统尼克松曾被法院允许根据该法前身征收关税，该法官反复强调，下级法院曾允许尼克松在执政期间依据类似法律对美国“所有进口商品征收10%的全球税”，这一历史参照表明，国会意在赋予总统“以适当方式应对紧急情况的工具”。在质询原告方——挑战关税的企业和州政府代表律师Neal Katyal时，Kavanaugh指出，如果国会的目的是限制关税增税的权力，为何没有修改IEEPA的措辞。Katyal辩称，IEEPA不应被视为对尼克松先前关税行动的回应。Kavanaugh还反驳了关于一项法案必须包含“关税（tariff）”一词才能授予总统征收关税权力的论点。政府首席律师强调紧急状态授权代表特朗普政府的总检察长Sauer在开场陈述中表示，特朗普的关税帮助总统达成重要贸易协议以促进美国经济，IEEPA赋予总统“重大权力”应对“重大问题”。Sauer坚持认为\"这些是监管性关税，不是创收性关税\"，\"它们产生收入只是附带的\"。但自由派大法官Sonia Sotomayor反驳：\"你说关税不是税收，可它们恰恰就是。它们从美国公民那里产生收入。\"她指出，除特朗普外从未有总统使用该法征收关税。面对自由派大法官Ketanji Brown Jackson的质疑，Sauer与其展开激烈交锋。Jackson强调：“国会显然试图通过IEEPA限制总统的紧急权力。因此，将一部旨在约束总统权力的法律解释为国会希望总统拥有基本上无限权力，似乎有些不一致。”Sauer还面临保守派大法官关于总统紧急状态宣布权的质疑。自由派大法官Elena Kagan似乎暗讽特朗普今年反复宣布紧急状态：“你们认为宣布紧急状态不可审查。实际上我们最近处理总统紧急权力案件时发现，我们一直处于紧急状态——一直如此，涉及大约半个世界。”原告律师强调宪法权力分立原告代表律师Katyal在陈述开场便直接表明：“关税就是税收。我们的开国元勋将征税权单独赋予国会。” 他表示：“我方认为IEEPA不允许破坏全球关税架构。”Katyal指出，政府辩称对等关税用于解决贸易逆差，但特朗普对瑞士这个美国盟友征收39%的关税，美国却对瑞士保持贸易顺差。“从未有其他总统做过这样的事，”他说。特朗普征收的关税对许多国家的基准税率为10%，对印度和巴西的商品税率高达50%。据美国跨党派研究机构 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget（CRFB）估算，如果关税维持，到2035年将为美国带来3万亿美元额外收入。该组织上周表示，2025财年下半年，联邦政府征收了1510亿美元关税，“较2024财年同期增长近300%。”保守派大法官Thomas和Alito提出假设性问题，试图探讨限制总统权力的潜在影响。Thomas询问，如果美国的主要贸易伙伴扣押美国公民作为人质，总统能否征收关税作为谈判筹码。Alito则问总统能否对即将与美国开战的敌国征收关税。Katyal回答不能，因为关税与税收一样属于创收行为。最高法院目前正在审理三起挑战特朗普关税的案件：两起由小型企业提起，另一起由12位民主党籍州检察长联合提出。在此前的三个联邦地方法院中，法官均裁定特朗普的关税违法。美国财长贝森特应特朗普要求出席周三的庭审。他本周稍早表示：“我在那里是要强调这是经济紧急状态。”","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":887,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":497158790620064,"gmtCreate":1762399113978,"gmtModify":1762400413375,"author":{"id":"4207127667828232","authorId":"4207127667828232","name":"yihang1122","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4207127667828232","idStr":"4207127667828232"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"If you Makequtians...toTupo，Please tell me。","listText":"If you Makequtians...toTupo，Please tell me。","text":"If you Makequtians...toTupo，Please tell me。","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/497158790620064","repostId":"1137574364","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137574364","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1762389618,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1137574364?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2025-11-06 08:40","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"U.S. Supreme Court public hearing, justices of all factions expressed doubts, Trump's \"reciprocal tariffs\" are in jeopardy","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137574364","media":"华尔街见闻","summary":"决定特朗普政府今年所宣布大多数关税命运的时刻来了。据央视新闻，当地时间11月5日周三，美国最高法院就美国总统特朗普大规模征收关税的合法性展开辩论。据央视新闻，今年5月28日，设在纽约的美国国际贸易法院3人合议庭就小企业主和美国12州所提诉讼裁定，特朗普无权援引IEEPA征收上述关税。两位特朗普任命大法官表达强烈质疑特朗普政府辩称，其关税行为依据的是IEEPA。","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>Several justices from different factions expressed high skepticism about the president's authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. According to the media, given the ultra-fast hearing process currently adopted by the Supreme Court, a ruling could be made as soon as the end of this year. Even if the Trump administration loses the case, there is still uncertainty in the follow-up, including whether the tariffs already paid will be refunded.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The moment to determine the fate of most of the tariffs the Trump administration has announced this year has come. According to CCTV News, on Wednesday, November 5, local time, the U.S. Supreme Court argued the legality of U.S. President Trump's large-scale tariff imposition.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointees, Justices Amy Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, both raised sharp questions about the Trump administration's position during the hours-long heated debate. All three conservative justices questioned the legality of the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tens of billions of dollars in monthly tariffs, signaling that a final ruling could sway Trump's signature economic policies.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of Trump's emergency tariff policy, the media concluded, and several conservative justices dismissed many of the administration's main arguments to defend import tariffs. The overall rhythm suggests that at least a majority of the judges have reservations about the government relying on declaring an emergency to impose unlimited global tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It should be noted that,<strong>Even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the Trump administration, how to unwind this complicated tariff system is fraught with challenges. Justice Amy Barrett bluntly said the process \"could be a mess,\" with outstanding questions including whether tariffs already paid would be refunded and whether Congress would pass retroactive legislation to legalize those tariffs.</strong></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In addition, the Supreme Court will not rule on this case this Wednesday after the prosecution and defense lawyers have made separate statements and been questioned by the judge. The court did not announce when it will release its ruling. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June next year, or possibly sooner, the media said.<strong>Given the ultra-fast hearing process currently undertaken by the Supreme Court, a ruling could come as soon as the end of the year.</strong></p><p><h2 id=\"id_576480910\">Trump warns: This is America's 'life and death' moment</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Central to the dispute in this case is whether it is legal for Trump to invoke IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all trading partners, a law that gives the president the power to \"regulate\" imports during a state of emergency but does not explicitly authorize tariffs. Trump warned on Tuesday that the case was a \"life or death\" moment for the United States, and that a ruling against him could have \"catastrophic\" consequences for the country's economic health. The plaintiff companies say that erratic tariff policies have made costs and uncertainty unbearable.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If it loses, the Trump administration will have to rely on other more restricted tariff laws and could face tens of billions of dollars in refunds. U.S. Treasury Secretary David Basent previously warned in court filings that the U.S. may need to return at least $750 billion if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs are illegal and delays issuing a ruling until next summer.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This case is also a major test of the boundaries of presidential power. According to CCTV News, on May 28 this year, a three-member panel of the U.S. International Trade Court in New York ruled in a lawsuit filed by small business owners and 12 states in the United States that Trump had no right to invoke IEEPA to impose the above tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has since heard the Trump administration's appeal and voted 7-4 on Aug. 29 to uphold the original ruling, but at the same time announced that the ruling would not take effect until Oct. 14 so that the Trump administration could appeal to the Supreme Court.</p><p><h2 id=\"28460104\">Chief Justice Questions Government's Core Argument</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chief Justice Roberts challenged the key precedent on which the Trump administration relied early in the argument. He reported to Attorney General D., the lead attorney representing the Trump administration. John Sauer pressured, pointing out that the Dames & Moore v. Regan case, which the government focused on citing, involved different provisions and \"certainly did not involve tariffs\". Roberts worked as an associate to Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion, and knew the case well.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Roberts further emphasized Congress's \"core authority\" on taxes, refuting the administration's claim that tariffs are not taxes. \"Taxation tools have always been the core power of Congress, and letting the diplomatic power of the president override this fundamental power of Congress would, in my opinion, at least cancel out two powers — executive and legislative,\" Roberts said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The plaintiff businesses challenging Trump's tariffs noted that it was U.S. taxpayers, not foreign companies, who ultimately paid for the tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Roberts also expressed concern about the foreign policy implications of tariffs. Questioning Neal Katyal, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, Roberts said the tariffs \"very directly involve the diplomatic authority of the president\" and that Trump's tariffs were \"quite effective\" in achieving specific goals of the president. This position is close to the administration's view that the president has broad powers in foreign affairs.</p><p><h2 id=\"f482cfaa\">Two Trump appointees voice strong doubts</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Trump administration has argued that it relies on the IEEPA for its tariff actions. The law gives the president a range of means to respond to national security, diplomatic or economic emergencies. While the IEEPA does not explicitly mention \"imposing tariffs,” there is a provision that allows the president to\" regulate” the \"import” of finances in response to the crisis.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Justice Barrett, a Trump appointee, expressed strong doubts about the aforementioned government arguments. She asked Sauer: \"Can you point out that at any other provision in the IEEPA or at any other time in history there have been expressions like 'regulate imports' used to give authority to impose tariffs?\" Barrett pressed on as Sauer was vague.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Barrett also questioned why all countries were subject to \"reciprocal tariffs\". She asked Sauer, \"Do you think every country needs to be tariffed because of the threat to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? Certain countries I can understand, but please explain to me why so many countries need to be tariffed with reciprocal tariffs.\" Sauer argued that reciprocal tariffs were intentionally designed to be broad \"because the emergency is so broad.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Justice Gorsuch, also a Trump appointee, pressured Sauer over Congressional authorization to the president. Gorsuch, who has long advocated the \"non-delegation doctrine\" aimed at maintaining a clear line between Congress and the president's powers, is alarmed by the Trump administration's claims that Congress has delegated tariff constitutional authority to the president.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gorsuch asked if Congress could authorize the constitutional power to impose tariffs, what else could it authorize, whether it could authorize the power to declare war. He asked Sauer: \"In the logic of the administration, why can't Congress give the president all the power to regulate foreign trade — even the power to declare war?\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gorsuch further questioned: \"What happens when the president vetoes legislation to reclaim these powers? In fact, once Congress surrenders power, it can't be reclaimed. This is a one-way mechanism of gradual but continuous concentration of power to the executive branch.\"</p><p><h2 id=\"id_913039233\">Another Trump appointee believes there is precedent for empowering the president to impose tariffs in emergencies</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another Trump appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, challenged the claim that Trump's tariffs were \"unprecedented\".</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regarding one of the historical precedents cited by the Trump administration — former President Richard Nixon had been allowed by the court to impose tariffs under its predecessor, the judge repeatedly emphasized that lower courts had allowed Nixon to impose a \"10 percent global tax on all imports\" on the United States under similar laws during his administration, a historical reference that suggested that Congress intended to give the president \"the tools to respond to emergencies in an appropriate manner.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Questioning the plaintiff side, Neal Katyal, attorney representing the business and state government challenging the tariffs, Kavanaugh pointed out why Congress did not amend the wording of the IEEPA if its purpose was to limit the power of tariff increases. Katyal argued that IEEPA should not be seen as a response to Nixon's previous tariff actions.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Kavanaugh also pushed back on the argument that a bill must contain the word \"tariff\" to grant the president the power to impose tariffs.</p><p><h2 id=\"26626c86\">Government's top lawyer highlights emergency mandate</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In his opening remarks, Attorney General Sauer, who represents the Trump administration, said that Trump's tariffs helped the president strike important trade deals to boost the U.S. economy and that the IEEPA gave the president \"significant authority\" to deal with \"significant issues.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sauer maintains that \"these are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-generating tariffs\" and that \"they generate revenue only incidentally\". But liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered: \"You say tariffs are not taxes, but they are. They generate income from American citizens.\" She noted that no president other than Trump has ever used the law to impose tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the face of doubts from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sauer engaged in a fierce confrontation. \"Congress is clearly trying to limit the president's emergency powers through the IEEPA. Therefore, it seems inconsistent to interpret a law intended to constrain the president's powers as Congress wants the president to have essentially unlimited powers,\" Jackson emphasized.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sauer also faces questions from conservative justices about the president's right to declare a state of emergency. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed to insinuate Trump's repeated declarations of emergencies this year: \"You think the declaration of emergencies is non-reviewable. In fact, we recently dealt with the presidential emergency powers case and found that we have been in an emergency — always, involving about half the world.\"</p><p><h2 id=\"9a99a927\">Plaintiffs'lawyers emphasize constitutional separation of powers</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Katyal, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, opened his statement by saying directly: \"Tariffs are taxes. Our founding fathers gave the right to collect taxes to Congress alone.\" \"We believe that IEEPA does not allow the undermining of the global tariff architecture,\" he said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Katyal pointed out that the administration argued that reciprocal tariffs were used to address the trade deficit, but the U.S. maintained a trade surplus with Switzerland while Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Switzerland, a U.S. ally. \"No other president has ever done anything like this,\" he said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The tariffs imposed by Trump have a benchmark rate of 10% on many countries and as much as 50% on goods from India and Brazil. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a bipartisan research organization in the United States, estimates that if the tariffs are maintained, they will generate $3 trillion in additional revenue for the United States by 2035. In the second half of fiscal 2025, the federal government collected $151 billion in tariffs, the group said last week, \"an increase of nearly 300% from the same period in fiscal 2024.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Conservative Justices Thomas and Alito asked hypothetical questions in an attempt to explore the potential implications of limiting presidential power. Thomas asked if the president could impose tariffs as bargaining chip if the nation's main trading partners were holding American citizens hostage. Alito, for his part, asked if the president could impose tariffs on enemy countries about to go to war with the United States. Katyal replied no, because tariffs are revenue-generating acts like taxes.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Supreme Court is currently hearing three cases challenging Trump's tariffs: two by small businesses and another by a combination of 12 Democratic state attorneys general. In three previous federal district courts, judges ruled that Trump's tariffs were illegal. U.S. Treasury Secretary Vincent appeared at Wednesday's trial at Trump's request. \"I'm there to emphasize that this is an economic emergency,\" he said earlier this week.</p><p></body></html></p>","source":"lsy1762389672944","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. Supreme Court public hearing, justices of all factions expressed doubts, Trump's \"reciprocal tariffs\" are in jeopardy</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. Supreme Court public hearing, justices of all factions expressed doubts, Trump's \"reciprocal tariffs\" are in jeopardy\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">华尔街见闻</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2025-11-06 08:40</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>Several justices from different factions expressed high skepticism about the president's authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. According to the media, given the ultra-fast hearing process currently adopted by the Supreme Court, a ruling could be made as soon as the end of this year. Even if the Trump administration loses the case, there is still uncertainty in the follow-up, including whether the tariffs already paid will be refunded.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The moment to determine the fate of most of the tariffs the Trump administration has announced this year has come. According to CCTV News, on Wednesday, November 5, local time, the U.S. Supreme Court argued the legality of U.S. President Trump's large-scale tariff imposition.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointees, Justices Amy Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, both raised sharp questions about the Trump administration's position during the hours-long heated debate. All three conservative justices questioned the legality of the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tens of billions of dollars in monthly tariffs, signaling that a final ruling could sway Trump's signature economic policies.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of Trump's emergency tariff policy, the media concluded, and several conservative justices dismissed many of the administration's main arguments to defend import tariffs. The overall rhythm suggests that at least a majority of the judges have reservations about the government relying on declaring an emergency to impose unlimited global tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It should be noted that,<strong>Even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the Trump administration, how to unwind this complicated tariff system is fraught with challenges. Justice Amy Barrett bluntly said the process \"could be a mess,\" with outstanding questions including whether tariffs already paid would be refunded and whether Congress would pass retroactive legislation to legalize those tariffs.</strong></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In addition, the Supreme Court will not rule on this case this Wednesday after the prosecution and defense lawyers have made separate statements and been questioned by the judge. The court did not announce when it will release its ruling. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June next year, or possibly sooner, the media said.<strong>Given the ultra-fast hearing process currently undertaken by the Supreme Court, a ruling could come as soon as the end of the year.</strong></p><p><h2 id=\"id_576480910\">Trump warns: This is America's 'life and death' moment</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Central to the dispute in this case is whether it is legal for Trump to invoke IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all trading partners, a law that gives the president the power to \"regulate\" imports during a state of emergency but does not explicitly authorize tariffs. Trump warned on Tuesday that the case was a \"life or death\" moment for the United States, and that a ruling against him could have \"catastrophic\" consequences for the country's economic health. The plaintiff companies say that erratic tariff policies have made costs and uncertainty unbearable.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If it loses, the Trump administration will have to rely on other more restricted tariff laws and could face tens of billions of dollars in refunds. U.S. Treasury Secretary David Basent previously warned in court filings that the U.S. may need to return at least $750 billion if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs are illegal and delays issuing a ruling until next summer.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This case is also a major test of the boundaries of presidential power. According to CCTV News, on May 28 this year, a three-member panel of the U.S. International Trade Court in New York ruled in a lawsuit filed by small business owners and 12 states in the United States that Trump had no right to invoke IEEPA to impose the above tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has since heard the Trump administration's appeal and voted 7-4 on Aug. 29 to uphold the original ruling, but at the same time announced that the ruling would not take effect until Oct. 14 so that the Trump administration could appeal to the Supreme Court.</p><p><h2 id=\"28460104\">Chief Justice Questions Government's Core Argument</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chief Justice Roberts challenged the key precedent on which the Trump administration relied early in the argument. He reported to Attorney General D., the lead attorney representing the Trump administration. John Sauer pressured, pointing out that the Dames & Moore v. Regan case, which the government focused on citing, involved different provisions and \"certainly did not involve tariffs\". Roberts worked as an associate to Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion, and knew the case well.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Roberts further emphasized Congress's \"core authority\" on taxes, refuting the administration's claim that tariffs are not taxes. \"Taxation tools have always been the core power of Congress, and letting the diplomatic power of the president override this fundamental power of Congress would, in my opinion, at least cancel out two powers — executive and legislative,\" Roberts said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The plaintiff businesses challenging Trump's tariffs noted that it was U.S. taxpayers, not foreign companies, who ultimately paid for the tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Roberts also expressed concern about the foreign policy implications of tariffs. Questioning Neal Katyal, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, Roberts said the tariffs \"very directly involve the diplomatic authority of the president\" and that Trump's tariffs were \"quite effective\" in achieving specific goals of the president. This position is close to the administration's view that the president has broad powers in foreign affairs.</p><p><h2 id=\"f482cfaa\">Two Trump appointees voice strong doubts</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Trump administration has argued that it relies on the IEEPA for its tariff actions. The law gives the president a range of means to respond to national security, diplomatic or economic emergencies. While the IEEPA does not explicitly mention \"imposing tariffs,” there is a provision that allows the president to\" regulate” the \"import” of finances in response to the crisis.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Justice Barrett, a Trump appointee, expressed strong doubts about the aforementioned government arguments. She asked Sauer: \"Can you point out that at any other provision in the IEEPA or at any other time in history there have been expressions like 'regulate imports' used to give authority to impose tariffs?\" Barrett pressed on as Sauer was vague.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Barrett also questioned why all countries were subject to \"reciprocal tariffs\". She asked Sauer, \"Do you think every country needs to be tariffed because of the threat to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? Certain countries I can understand, but please explain to me why so many countries need to be tariffed with reciprocal tariffs.\" Sauer argued that reciprocal tariffs were intentionally designed to be broad \"because the emergency is so broad.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Justice Gorsuch, also a Trump appointee, pressured Sauer over Congressional authorization to the president. Gorsuch, who has long advocated the \"non-delegation doctrine\" aimed at maintaining a clear line between Congress and the president's powers, is alarmed by the Trump administration's claims that Congress has delegated tariff constitutional authority to the president.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gorsuch asked if Congress could authorize the constitutional power to impose tariffs, what else could it authorize, whether it could authorize the power to declare war. He asked Sauer: \"In the logic of the administration, why can't Congress give the president all the power to regulate foreign trade — even the power to declare war?\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gorsuch further questioned: \"What happens when the president vetoes legislation to reclaim these powers? In fact, once Congress surrenders power, it can't be reclaimed. This is a one-way mechanism of gradual but continuous concentration of power to the executive branch.\"</p><p><h2 id=\"id_913039233\">Another Trump appointee believes there is precedent for empowering the president to impose tariffs in emergencies</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another Trump appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, challenged the claim that Trump's tariffs were \"unprecedented\".</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regarding one of the historical precedents cited by the Trump administration — former President Richard Nixon had been allowed by the court to impose tariffs under its predecessor, the judge repeatedly emphasized that lower courts had allowed Nixon to impose a \"10 percent global tax on all imports\" on the United States under similar laws during his administration, a historical reference that suggested that Congress intended to give the president \"the tools to respond to emergencies in an appropriate manner.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Questioning the plaintiff side, Neal Katyal, attorney representing the business and state government challenging the tariffs, Kavanaugh pointed out why Congress did not amend the wording of the IEEPA if its purpose was to limit the power of tariff increases. Katyal argued that IEEPA should not be seen as a response to Nixon's previous tariff actions.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Kavanaugh also pushed back on the argument that a bill must contain the word \"tariff\" to grant the president the power to impose tariffs.</p><p><h2 id=\"26626c86\">Government's top lawyer highlights emergency mandate</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In his opening remarks, Attorney General Sauer, who represents the Trump administration, said that Trump's tariffs helped the president strike important trade deals to boost the U.S. economy and that the IEEPA gave the president \"significant authority\" to deal with \"significant issues.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sauer maintains that \"these are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-generating tariffs\" and that \"they generate revenue only incidentally\". But liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered: \"You say tariffs are not taxes, but they are. They generate income from American citizens.\" She noted that no president other than Trump has ever used the law to impose tariffs.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the face of doubts from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sauer engaged in a fierce confrontation. \"Congress is clearly trying to limit the president's emergency powers through the IEEPA. Therefore, it seems inconsistent to interpret a law intended to constrain the president's powers as Congress wants the president to have essentially unlimited powers,\" Jackson emphasized.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sauer also faces questions from conservative justices about the president's right to declare a state of emergency. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed to insinuate Trump's repeated declarations of emergencies this year: \"You think the declaration of emergencies is non-reviewable. In fact, we recently dealt with the presidential emergency powers case and found that we have been in an emergency — always, involving about half the world.\"</p><p><h2 id=\"9a99a927\">Plaintiffs'lawyers emphasize constitutional separation of powers</h2><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Katyal, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, opened his statement by saying directly: \"Tariffs are taxes. Our founding fathers gave the right to collect taxes to Congress alone.\" \"We believe that IEEPA does not allow the undermining of the global tariff architecture,\" he said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Katyal pointed out that the administration argued that reciprocal tariffs were used to address the trade deficit, but the U.S. maintained a trade surplus with Switzerland while Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Switzerland, a U.S. ally. \"No other president has ever done anything like this,\" he said.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The tariffs imposed by Trump have a benchmark rate of 10% on many countries and as much as 50% on goods from India and Brazil. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a bipartisan research organization in the United States, estimates that if the tariffs are maintained, they will generate $3 trillion in additional revenue for the United States by 2035. In the second half of fiscal 2025, the federal government collected $151 billion in tariffs, the group said last week, \"an increase of nearly 300% from the same period in fiscal 2024.\"</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Conservative Justices Thomas and Alito asked hypothetical questions in an attempt to explore the potential implications of limiting presidential power. Thomas asked if the president could impose tariffs as bargaining chip if the nation's main trading partners were holding American citizens hostage. Alito, for his part, asked if the president could impose tariffs on enemy countries about to go to war with the United States. Katyal replied no, because tariffs are revenue-generating acts like taxes.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Supreme Court is currently hearing three cases challenging Trump's tariffs: two by small businesses and another by a combination of 12 Democratic state attorneys general. In three previous federal district courts, judges ruled that Trump's tariffs were illegal. U.S. Treasury Secretary Vincent appeared at Wednesday's trial at Trump's request. \"I'm there to emphasize that this is an economic emergency,\" he said earlier this week.</p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3758755\">华尔街见闻</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c3d3683e954b684b5874a2bcb621fbb1","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3758755","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137574364","content_text":"来自不同派别的多位大法官均对总统是否有权单方面征收关税表达了高度怀疑。据媒体，鉴于最高院目前采取的超快速审理程序，裁决最快可能在今年年底前作出。而即使特朗普政府败诉，后续依然存在不确定性，包括已经支付的关税是否会退还等。决定特朗普政府今年所宣布大多数关税命运的时刻来了。据央视新闻，当地时间11月5日周三，美国最高法院就美国总统特朗普大规模征收关税的合法性展开辩论。在长达数小时的激烈辩论中，首席大法官John Roberts和特朗普任命的大法官Amy Barrett、Neil Gorsuch均对特朗普政府的立场提出尖锐质疑。这三位保守派大法官都质疑特朗普政府使用1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）每月征收数百亿美元关税的合法性，传出最终裁决可能动摇特朗普标志性经济政策的信号。媒体总结称，最高法院的多数法官似乎对特朗普的紧急关税政策持怀疑态度，几位保守派大法官驳斥了政府为进口关税辩护的诸多主要论点。整体节奏表明，至少多数法官对政府依靠宣布紧急状态实施无限制的全球性关税持保留意见。需要注意的是，即使最高法院最终裁定特朗普政府败诉，如何解除这一复杂的关税体系也充满了挑战。大法官Amy Barrett直言，这一过程“可能是一团糟”，未决的问题包括已经支付的关税是否会退还，以及国会是否会通过追溯性立法来使这些关税合法化。此外，在控辩双方律师各自陈词并接受法官质询后，最高法院本周三不会就本案作出裁决，法院并未宣布何时公布裁决。媒体称，最高院预计在明年6月底前做出裁决，也可能更早。鉴于最高院目前采取的超快速审理程序，裁决最快可能在今年年底前作出。特朗普警告：这是美国“生死攸关”时刻本案的核心争议在于，特朗普援引IEEPA对几乎所有贸易伙伴征收关税是否合法，该法律赋予总统在紧急状态下“规范”进口的权力，但并未明确授权征收关税。特朗普本周二警告，本案对美国而言是“生死攸关”的时刻，若裁决对他不利，可能对国家的经济健康造成“灾难性”的后果。原告公司则表示，反复无常的关税政策已经让成本和不确定性达到难以承受的地步。如果败诉，特朗普政府将不得不依赖其他受限更多的关税法律，且可能面临数百亿美元的退款要求。美国财政部长贝森特此前在法庭文件中警告，如果最高法院裁定关税非法并推迟至明年夏天发布裁决，美国可能需要退还至少7500亿美元。本案也是对总统权力边界的重大考验。据央视新闻，今年5月28日，设在纽约的美国国际贸易法院3人合议庭就小企业主和美国12州所提诉讼裁定，特朗普无权援引IEEPA征收上述关税。美国联邦巡回上诉法院此后审理特朗普政府所提上诉，并于8月29日以7比4的投票结果维持原裁决，但同时宣布裁决在10月14日之前不会生效，以便特朗普政府向最高法院提起上诉。首席大法官质疑政府核心论据首席大法官Roberts在辩论早期就对特朗普政府依赖的关键先例提出质疑。他向代表特朗普政府的首席律师、总检察长D. John Sauer施压，指出政府重点援引的Dames & Moore v. Regan案涉及不同条款，\"肯定不涉及关税\"。Roberts当年曾担任撰写该案意见书的大法官William Rehnquist的助理，对此案了如指掌。Roberts进一步强调国会在税收方面的“核心权力”，驳斥政府关于关税不是税收的说法。Roberts说：“征税工具始终是国会的核心权力，让总统的外交权力压倒国会这一基本权力，在我看来至少会使两种权力——行政权和立法权——相互抵消。”挑战特朗普关税的原告企业指出，最终为关税买单的是美国纳税人，而不是国外公司。Roberts同时对关税的外交政策影响表示关切。在质询原告代表律师Neal Katyal时，Roberts表示，关税“非常直接地涉及总统的外交权力”，特朗普的关税在实现总统特定目标方面\"相当有效\"。这一立场与政府关于总统在外交事务中拥有广泛权力的观点接近。两位特朗普任命大法官表达强烈质疑特朗普政府辩称，其关税行为依据的是IEEPA。该法赋予总统一系列手段应对国家安全、外交或经济紧急情况。虽然IEEPA并未明确提及“征收关税”，但其中有一个条款允许总统为应对危机而“规范”对财务的“进口”。特朗普任命的大法官Barrett对上述政府论据表达强烈怀疑。她问Sauer：“你能否指出，在IEEPA中其他任何条款或历史上其他任何时候，有‘规范进口’这样的表述被用来赋予征收关税的权力？”当Sauer含糊其辞时，Barrett继续追问。Barrett还质疑为何所有国家都被征收“对等关税”。她向Sauer发问：“你是否认为每个国家都需要被征收关税，因为对国防和工业基础构成威胁？我是说，西班牙、法国？某些国家我能理解，但请向我解释为什么如此多国家需要被征收对等关税。”Sauer辩称，对等关税故意设计得很广泛是“因为紧急状态如此广泛”。同为特朗普任命的大法官Gorsuch则就国会向总统授权问题向Sauer施压。Gorsuch长期主张“非授权原则”，旨在保持国会与总统权力的明确界限，他对特朗普政府声称国会已将关税宪权授予总统的主张表示警觉。Gorsuch提问，如果国会可以授权征收关税的宪法权力，那还能授权其他什么，能否授权宣战权。他问Sauer： “按照政府的逻辑，国会又凭什么不能把监管对外贸易的全部权力——甚至连宣战权——都交给总统？”Gorsuch进一步质疑：“总统否决立法收回这些权力会怎样？实际上国会一旦交出权力就无法收回，这是权力向行政部门逐渐但持续集中的单向机制。”另一特朗普任命大法官认为已有赋权总统紧急情况下征关税先例另一特朗普任命的大法官Brett Kavanaugh则是对特朗普关税“前所未有”的说法提出了质疑。对于特朗普政府提到的历史先例之一——前总统尼克松曾被法院允许根据该法前身征收关税，该法官反复强调，下级法院曾允许尼克松在执政期间依据类似法律对美国“所有进口商品征收10%的全球税”，这一历史参照表明，国会意在赋予总统“以适当方式应对紧急情况的工具”。在质询原告方——挑战关税的企业和州政府代表律师Neal Katyal时，Kavanaugh指出，如果国会的目的是限制关税增税的权力，为何没有修改IEEPA的措辞。Katyal辩称，IEEPA不应被视为对尼克松先前关税行动的回应。Kavanaugh还反驳了关于一项法案必须包含“关税（tariff）”一词才能授予总统征收关税权力的论点。政府首席律师强调紧急状态授权代表特朗普政府的总检察长Sauer在开场陈述中表示，特朗普的关税帮助总统达成重要贸易协议以促进美国经济，IEEPA赋予总统“重大权力”应对“重大问题”。Sauer坚持认为\"这些是监管性关税，不是创收性关税\"，\"它们产生收入只是附带的\"。但自由派大法官Sonia Sotomayor反驳：\"你说关税不是税收，可它们恰恰就是。它们从美国公民那里产生收入。\"她指出，除特朗普外从未有总统使用该法征收关税。面对自由派大法官Ketanji Brown Jackson的质疑，Sauer与其展开激烈交锋。Jackson强调：“国会显然试图通过IEEPA限制总统的紧急权力。因此，将一部旨在约束总统权力的法律解释为国会希望总统拥有基本上无限权力，似乎有些不一致。”Sauer还面临保守派大法官关于总统紧急状态宣布权的质疑。自由派大法官Elena Kagan似乎暗讽特朗普今年反复宣布紧急状态：“你们认为宣布紧急状态不可审查。实际上我们最近处理总统紧急权力案件时发现，我们一直处于紧急状态——一直如此，涉及大约半个世界。”原告律师强调宪法权力分立原告代表律师Katyal在陈述开场便直接表明：“关税就是税收。我们的开国元勋将征税权单独赋予国会。” 他表示：“我方认为IEEPA不允许破坏全球关税架构。”Katyal指出，政府辩称对等关税用于解决贸易逆差，但特朗普对瑞士这个美国盟友征收39%的关税，美国却对瑞士保持贸易顺差。“从未有其他总统做过这样的事，”他说。特朗普征收的关税对许多国家的基准税率为10%，对印度和巴西的商品税率高达50%。据美国跨党派研究机构 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget（CRFB）估算，如果关税维持，到2035年将为美国带来3万亿美元额外收入。该组织上周表示，2025财年下半年，联邦政府征收了1510亿美元关税，“较2024财年同期增长近300%。”保守派大法官Thomas和Alito提出假设性问题，试图探讨限制总统权力的潜在影响。Thomas询问，如果美国的主要贸易伙伴扣押美国公民作为人质，总统能否征收关税作为谈判筹码。Alito则问总统能否对即将与美国开战的敌国征收关税。Katyal回答不能，因为关税与税收一样属于创收行为。最高法院目前正在审理三起挑战特朗普关税的案件：两起由小型企业提起，另一起由12位民主党籍州检察长联合提出。在此前的三个联邦地方法院中，法官均裁定特朗普的关税违法。美国财长贝森特应特朗普要求出席周三的庭审。他本周稍早表示：“我在那里是要强调这是经济紧急状态。”","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":887,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}
