摘要：美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）2025年9月4日报道，根据CNN）获取的特朗普政府提交给最高法院的上诉文件，唐纳德·特朗普总统于9月3日敦促最高法院支持他正在进行的紧急关税法律战，施压最高法院的大法官推翻一项下级法院裁决，该裁决认定其以《国际紧急经济权力法》对全
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。
特朗普说：没有关税，我们就会沦为贫穷国家
一、特朗普提交上诉书，请求最高法院推翻上诉法院关于其关税违法的裁决
美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）2025年9月4日报道，根据CNN）获取的特朗普政府提交给最高法院的上诉文件，唐纳德·特朗普总统于9月3日敦促最高法院支持他正在进行的紧急关税法律战，施压最高法院的大法官推翻一项下级法院裁决，该裁决认定其以《国际紧急经济权力法》对全球贸易伙伴征收多项大范围关税违法。
特朗普9月2日在椭圆形办公室表示：“股市需要这些关税，市场也希望有这些关税。”他还危言耸听地将此案定性为关乎国家存亡的大案，坚称上诉法院的不利裁决“对我们国家来说将是一场灾难”。上诉文件称：“在总统及其最高级别顾问看来，这些关税构成了一个严峻的选择：有了关税，我们就是富裕国家；没有关税，我们就会沦为贫穷国家。”
在私人企业和民主党控制的12个州状告特朗普对全球大规模加征关税违法的上诉中，华盛顿联邦上诉法院在8月29日作出分歧性裁决，认定特朗普依据《国际紧急经济权力法》加征关税的行为越权。该上诉法院裁定，征税权（包括关税征收权）是《宪法》赋予立法部门的“核心国会权力”。
特朗普不仅借助这部20世纪70年代出台的《国际紧急经济权力法》重塑全球贸易格局，还用来调整美国与盟友及对手的联盟关系。若他声称的部分加征关税权力被永久禁止，其政府将需寻找其他手段来实现其宏大的外交政策目标。
此案的核心是特朗普于4月宣布的“解放日关税”，以及针对中国、墨西哥和加拿大实施的所谓打击芬太尼流入美国的关税。葡萄酒进口商VOS精选公司及其他小型企业联合12个州提起诉讼，指控特朗普的行为违法。
此案所涉及的联邦法律允许总统在紧急状态下“监管进口”，但该法律条文并未明确提及关税。因而，纽约一家联邦法院于5月底作出裁决，支持上述企业和各州的主张。美国联邦巡回上诉法院维持了该裁决。不过，在诉讼程序持续期间，该上诉法院允许这些关税暂时继续生效。
上诉法院在裁决书中写道，该法律“赋予总统重大权力，使其能在已宣布的国家紧急状态下采取多项应对行动，但这些行动中没有任何一项明确包括征收关税、关税类费用或征税的权力”。
代表原告参与此案的自由司法中心高级法律顾问兼诉讼主任杰弗里·施瓦布表示：“审理过该问题的两家联邦法院均一致认为，《国际紧急经济权力法》并未赋予总统不受约束的关税权力。这些非法关税正给小型企业造成严重损害，危及它们的生存。我们希望为客户尽快解决此案。”
特朗普政府请求最高法院进行异常迅速的审查，要求大法官们在9月10日前决定是否受理此案，并在11月初准备好庭审辩论。此案原告已同意这一快速时间表。
特朗普政府向最高法院辩称，下级法院的裁决“在总统看来，将单方面使美国失去（贸易）威慑力，让其他国家得以用报复性贸易政策挟持美国经济”。
目前这起案件并非首个提交最高法院的关于特朗普紧急关税的案件。两家美国家族式玩具公司已于6月提起类似上诉。最高法院定于本月晚些时候举行闭门会议，审议是否受理该案的庭审辩论。
此案再次为最高法院提出了关于总统权力的根本性问题：总统是否有权在没有国会明确授权的情况下单方面采取行动？批评者指出，上一位在类似情况下加征关税的总统是理查德·尼克松，而国会后来削弱了他的这一权力。
美国最高法院的9名大法官中的3名系特朗普提名
二、若输掉官司，特朗普与各国达成的贸易协议及增加的关税面临哪些风险？
自今年春季特朗普对全球贸易伙伴加征关税以来，创纪录的关税收入持续流入美国财政部普通账户。美国海关和边境保护局的数据显示，在2025财年期间，与《国际紧急经济权力法》相关的关税带来了超过2100亿美元的收入。
若最高法院不受理特朗普政府的上诉，或支持下级法院的裁决，美国进口商或将有权获得关税退款。
特朗普本周早些时候承认了这一潜在后果，同时也承认此案结果可能对近期几项仍在协商中的贸易协定产生影响。他9月2日表示：“我达成的众多贸易协议都得益于关税。关税能赋予你强大的谈判能力。”
但如果特朗普在上诉法院输掉这场关税法律战，这些协议可能很快破裂，因为特朗普此前对其他贸易伙伴的商品加征关税时，援引的正是《国际紧急经济权力法》。此外，其他贸易伙伴也可能利用特朗普对其出口商品加征关税的能力被削弱这一情况，通过谈判为贸易协定争取更有利的条款。
特朗普第二任期发起针对全球的关税战
三、除紧急权力法外，特朗普还有哪些加重关税的手段
尽管特朗普在第二任期内以紧急经济权力为由加征的大部分关税最终可能被认定为非法，但他仍有多种其他手段可用来继续推进其重关税议程。
这是因为特朗普并非只依赖《国际紧急经济权力法》加征关税。他在第二任期内实施的所有行业性关税，包括最近一次对钢铝衍生品（如喷雾除臭剂、婴儿推车）征收50%的关税，均依据的是《1962年贸易扩展法》第232条。
该法第232条虽然授权赋予总统以国家安全为由加征更高关税的权力，但该权力仅可针对特定行业使用，且在加征关税前必须启动相关调查。
同样，特朗普还有其他几种无需面临当前法律挑战的加征关税手段。但这些手段也存在限制，可能使其难以像1月重新掌权以来多次做的那样，随意威胁加征关税后又迅速取消。
Trump asks Supreme Court to save his emergency tariffs. By John Fritze, Elisabeth Buchwald on CNN. September 4, 2025.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to step into the fray over his emergency tariffs, putting the centerpiece of his economic agenda in the hands of the justices who have mostly backed his sweeping view of executive power, according to a copy of the appeal obtained by CNN.
Trump is pressing the justices to overturn a lower court ruling that found his administration acted unlawfully by imposing many of his sweeping import taxes, and he has framed the case in existential terms.
“The stock market needs the tariffs, they want the tariffs,” Trump said Tuesday in the Oval Office, asserting that an adverse decision would mean “devastation for our country.”
The case once again raises fundamental questions for the court about a president’s power to act unilaterally and without explicit authority from Congress. Trump’s critics note that the last president to raise tariffs under similar circumstances was Richard Nixon, and Congress later pared back the president’s power.
“To the president and his most senior advisors, these tariffs thus present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation,” according to the appeal.
The appeal follows a divided decision Friday from a federal appeals court in Washington that found Trump overstepped his authority by relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. The authority to impose taxes, including tariffs, is “a core congressional power” that the Constitution left to the legislative branch, the appeals court ruled.
Trump has relied on the 1970s-era emergency law, known as IEEPA, to reshape not just global trade, but also alliances with allies and adversaries. If some of the powers he’s claimed to set those tariffs are permanently blocked, the administration would need to find other levers to accomplish its ambitious foreign policy goals.
At the center of the case are the “Liberation Day” tariffs Trump announced in April and tariffs placed this year against China, Mexico and Canada that were designed to combat fentanyl entering the United States. A wine importer, VOS Selections, and other small businesses sued, along with a dozen states, arguing Trump had exceeded his authority.
“Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the president unchecked tariff authority,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation for Liberty Justice Center, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”
The Trump administration has requested an unusually speedy review by the Supreme Court, asking that the justices decide whether to hear the case by September 10 and tee up arguments for early November. The plaintiffs in the case have agreed to that rapid timeline.
A federal court in New York agreed in late May and sided with the companies and states. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld that decision. However, the appeals court let the tariffs stand temporarily while the litigation continues.
The lower court’s decision, the Trump administration argued to the Supreme Court, “would, in the president’s view, unilaterally disarm the United States and allow other nations to hold America’s economy hostage to their retaliatory trade policies.”
While the bulk of the tariffs Trump imposed during his second term, which cited emergency economic powers, could ultimately be rendered illegal, the president has plenty of other levers he can pull to continue pushing his tariff-heavy agenda.
That’s because Trump hasn’t just been using IEEPA to levy tariffs. All the sectoral tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term, most recently a 50% tariff on derivatives of steel and aluminum, such as spray deodorants and baby strollers, have used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
The Section 232 authority gives the president the authority to impose higher tariffs on national security grounds. But it can only be used to target specific sectors and requires an investigation to be launched before tariffs can be imposed.
Similarly, there are several other methods Trump can use to impose tariffs that aren’t currently facing legal challenges. However, they too have catches that could make it harder for him to dangle and then withdraw duties quickly, as he has repeatedly done since retaking power in January.
The ongoing case is not the first to reach the Supreme Court dealing with Trump’s emergency tariffs. Two American family-owned toy companies filed a similar appeal in June. The court is scheduled to meet behind closed doors later this month to consider whether to hear arguments in that case.
The legal fight over the tariffs is likely to implicate a theory that conservative groups repeatedly used successfully at the Supreme Court in recent years to block former President Joe Biden’s agenda, including his effort to forgive student loans. The court repeatedly relied on the “major questions doctrine” to trim the power of the White House and federal agencies to act without congressional approval.
The federal law at issue allows a president to “regulate … importation” during emergencies, but the statute does not specifically address tariffs.
The law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency,” the appeals court wrote in its decision. “But none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”
Trade agreements and tariff revenue at stake
Record levels of tariff revenue have been flowing into the US Treasury Department’s general account since Trump ramped up in the spring. Over the course of the 2025 fiscal year, more than $210 billion in tariff revenue stemmed from the IEEPA-related tariffs, according to data from US Customs and Border Protection.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t hear the Trump administration’s appeal or sides with the lower courts, American importers could be due refunds.
Trump acknowledged that potential consequence earlier this week, as well as the impact the case outcome could have on a handful of recent trade agreements that are still being worked out.
“Numerous of the trade deals that I made were because of tariffs. It gives you a great negotiating ability,” Trump said Tuesday.
But those agreements could quickly fall apart because Trump has cited IEEPA in imposing tariffs on other trading partners’ goods. It’s also possible other trading partners could leverage Trump’s weakened ability to impose tariffs on their exports by negotiating more favorable terms to trade agreements.
来源：读行品世事一点号
