摘要：据美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）2025年8月29日报道，美国一家联邦上诉法院在8月29日的上诉裁决中推翻了唐纳德·特朗普总统推出的多项具有标志性意义的关税，称其以紧急权力为由征收进口税违法。

欢迎和感谢各位朋友阅读、转发、收藏、关注和留下宝贵评论！[鼓掌][作揖][中国赞]喜欢英语的朋友可跳过中文直接阅读后附英语原文。

美国商业组织和民主党执政州要求法院取消特朗普关税

一、特朗普在围绕其加征关税的国内法律战中又败一轮

据美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）2025年8月29日报道，美国一家联邦上诉法院在8月29日的上诉裁决中推翻了唐纳德·特朗普总统推出的多项具有标志性意义的关税，称其以紧急权力为由征收进口税违法。

在今年4月特朗普援引《国际经济权力法》对全球贸易伙伴加重关税后，代表葡萄酒销售商VOS精选及其他四家小企业的自由派法律倡导组织“自由司法中心”和由12个民主党执政州分别对政府加征关税提起诉讼，认为特朗普加征存在越权违法行为。

今年5月，美国国际贸易法院的一个三人法官组禁止了特朗普政府所有依据《国际紧急经济权力法》征收的关税、特朗普于4月2日宣布的“解放日”关税，以及今年早些时候针对中国、墨西哥和加拿大征收的所谓目的是打击流入美国的芬太尼的关税。但该禁令未涵盖针对汽车、汽车零部件、钢铁或铝的25%关税，这些关税依据的是另一部法律《贸易扩张法》第232条。

特朗普政府随即对该裁决提起上诉，由此开启了围绕这一经济政策的法律之争。联邦巡回上诉法院将这两起案件合并审理。

联邦巡回上诉法院在一份未署名的意见书（维持下级法院反对特朗普关税的裁决）中表示，《国际紧急经济权力法》并未授权总统依据该法征收此类关税。

法官们指出，特朗普推出的这一史无前例的关税属于越权行为，因为征收包括关税在内的税收权力是《宪法》赋予立法机构“国会的核心权力”。但法院将裁决执行时间推迟至10月，因此特朗普加征的关税目前仍将继续有效。这为特朗普政府向最高法院提起上诉留出了时间。

法院裁定，国会在通过《国际紧急经济权力法》时，并未赋予总统“广泛权力以征收‘反走私及对等关税’这类性质的关税”。

法院在多数赞同的意见裁决中指出：“值得注意的是，国会在起草《国际紧急经济权力法》时，并未使用‘关税’一词或其任何同义词，如‘关税税项’或‘税收’。《国际紧急经济权力法》中完全没有此类与关税相关的表述，这与国会明确授予此类权力并对其设定清晰限制的其他法律形成了鲜明对比。”

多数法官的结论是：特朗普试图推行的、本案所涉的这类大范围关税，其“规模”极为庞大，若要合法征收，他必须获得国会的明确授权。

法官们在裁决中写道：“我们认为，《国际紧急经济权力法》并未为征收‘对等关税’与‘反走私关税’这类规模的关税提供明确的国会授权。”

持异议的法官在由理查德·塔兰托法官撰写的长篇意见书中表示，他们认为特朗普所援引的紧急权力确实赋予了他一定的关税征收权。塔兰托在意见书中的部分内容写道：“《国际紧急经济权力法》的条文（经其立法史证实）授权通过关税来监管进口贸易。”

该案由联邦巡回上诉法院全体法官（full bench）审理。其中7名法官作出了反对特朗普加征关税的裁决，4名法官对法院裁决持异议。

尽管多数法官裁定特朗普依据紧急状态法征收关税的行为越权，但法院并未直接禁止这些关税。相反，法院将两起针对关税的诉讼发回下级法院，要求下级法院重新审查其此前在全国范围内禁止该关税的做法是否超出了权限。

特朗普对上诉法院的裁决作出初步反应

二、特朗普和白宫对法院裁决的反应

8月29日晚上，特朗普在社交媒体上发帖对法院的这一裁定作出反应时称：“所有关税目前仍有效！若这些关税被取消，对我们的国家而言将是一场彻底的灾难。”

特朗普借助其大范围关税，不仅重塑了全球贸易格局，还重塑了与友好国家的联盟关系及与对手的双边关系。这些关税是其经济计划的核心支柱。若他声称的部分关税制定权最终被永久禁止，特朗普政府将需寻找其他手段来实现他的部分宏伟目标。

美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特曾在6月表示，与美国贸易伙伴的关税谈判有望在美国劳动节（9月的第一个星期一）前“完成”。然而，这一截止日期如今看来难以实现。目前正在重新审视与美国贸易条款的外国领导人，如今可能需要更明确的信息，以了解特朗普关税在法律层面的适用情况。

白宫在8月29日的一份声明中为特朗普依据该经济紧急状态法征收进口税的权力进行了辩护。

白宫发言人库什·德赛在声明中表示：“特朗普总统合法行使了国会赋予他的关税权力，以保护我国国家安全和经济安全免受外部威胁。总统推出的关税目前仍有效，我们期待在此事上取得最终胜利。”

依赖进口的美国小企业与消费者成为特朗普关税的最大受害者

Appeals court strikes down many Trump tariffs, saying he overstepped his authority. By Devan Cole, Katelyn Polantz, Ramishah Maruf, Elisabeth Buchwald on CNN. August 29, 2025.

A federal appeals court Friday struck down many of President Donald Trump’s historic tariffs, saying he unlawfully leaned on emergency powers to impose the import taxes.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs like the ones Trump used the law for earlier this year, the Federal Circuit said in an unsigned opinion upholding a lower-court ruling against Trump’s tariffs.

The judges noted that Trump’s unprecedented tariffs are an overstep of his power because the ability to impose taxes, including tariffs, is “a core Congressional power” that the Constitution grants to the legislative branch.

The tariffs remain in place for now, after the court delayed implementation of its order until October. That gives the Trump administration time to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

“All tariffs are still in effect!” Trump posted late Friday on social media. “If these tariffs ever went away, it would a total disaster for our country.”

Trump has used his sweeping tariffs to reshape not just global trade, but alliances with friendly nations and relationships with adversaries. The levies are a cornerstone of his economic plan. If some of the powers he’s claimed to set those tariffs are ultimately permanently blocked, the administration would need to find other levers to accomplish some of Trump’s ambitious goals.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in June that tariff negotiations with America’s trading partners would likely be “wrapped up” by Labor Day. However, that deadline seems improbable, given that foreign leaders currently reviewing their trade terms with the United States may now require additional clarity on the legal application of Trump’s tariffs.

In a statement on Friday, the White House defended the president’s powers to impose import taxes using the economic emergency law.

“President Trump lawfully exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to defend our national and economic security from foreign threats,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in the statement. “The President’s tariffs remain in effect, and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter.”

The court ruled that Congress, in passing the IEEPA, did not give the president “wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs.”

“Notably, when drafting IEEPA, Congress did not use the term ‘tariff’ or any of its synonyms, like ‘duty’ or ‘tax,’” the court said in its majority ruling. “The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power.”

The majority concluded that Trump’s effort to roll out sweeping tariffs like the ones at issue in the case are of such great “magnitude” that he must have explicit congressional authorization if he wants to impose them lawfully.

“We discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs,” they wrote.

The dissenting judges said in a lengthy opinion penned by Judge Richard Taranto that they think the emergency powers Trump invoked do give him some authority to impose tariffs.

“IEEPA’s language, as confirmed by its history, authorizes tariffs to regulate importation,” Taranto wrote in part.

The case was heard by the full bench of the Federal Circuit. Seven of its judges ruled against Trump, while four dissented from the court’s decision.

Though the majority ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when he used the emergency law to impose the tariffs, it declined to block them outright. Instead, it sent a pair of challenges tothe levies back to the lower court to take another look at whether it went too far when it blocked the tariffs on a nationwide basis.

A federal court ruled in May that Trump did not have the authority under the IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs. The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision, setting the course for a legal battle over the economic policy that Trump promises will re-focus the American economy on manufacturing, but could raise prices for small businesses and consumers.

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade blocked all tariffs invoked under IEEPA, the “Liberation Day” tariffs Trump announced on April 2, and the tariffs placed earlier this year against China, Mexico and Canada that were designed to combat fentanyl coming into the United States. Notably, the order did not include the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were under a different law, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

The panel unanimously came to a summary judgment on two separate cases in one opinion. One was a lawsuit filed in April by the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal advocacy group representing wine-seller VOS Selections and four other small businesses. The other was filed by 12 Democratic states against the government over tariffs.

The appeals court consolidated those two cases.

来源：读行品世事一点号