联邦上诉法院裁定唐纳德·特朗普总统的大部分全面的全球关税是非法的，可能会对总统单方面重塑美国贸易政策的努力造成重大打击。
在一项7比4的裁决中，美国联邦巡回上诉法院驳回了特朗普执行大部分关税的权力，同意下级法院的意见，即特朗普的行为“因违反法律而无效”。然而，法院将其决定的影响推迟到10月中旬，以允许特朗普政府向最高法院提起上诉，因为关税仍然有效。
“因为我们同意[国际紧急经济权力法]授予总统‘监管’进口的权力并不授权行政命令征收关税，我们申明，”多数人写道。
这一决定实际上给最高法院提出了一个最重要的法律问题，即总统在贸易政策上的权力范围。
10月14日之后，最高法院将把此案退回下级法院，以决定如何处理最高法院最近限制全国禁令的决定影响决策。
特朗普对决定做出反应
周五晚上，特朗普在社交媒体平台上发表了一篇帖子，谴责上诉法院的决定，并警告说，阻止关税的法院命令“将真正摧毁美利坚合众国”。
特朗普预计未来几周将面临法律挑战，他呼吁最高法院裁定他有权单方面征收关税。
“现在，在美国最高法院的帮助下，我们将利用它们来造福于我们的国家，使美国再次富强起来!感谢大家对此事的关注，”特朗普写道。
决定说了什么
在周五的裁决中，上诉法院裁定，只有国会，而不是总统，有权征收关税，这给最高法院提出了一个关于总统权力范围的高调法律问题。
该决定的核心是，国际紧急经济权力法案中包含的“监管”进口的权力是否意味着总统可以自行征收关税。
11名法官中有7名表示，这部很少使用的法律没有赋予特朗普实施他的“互惠”关税或对加拿大、墨西哥和中国征收的“贩运”关税的权力，这些关税旨在阻止芬太尼越过美国边境，并写道，“关税是国会的核心权力。”
大多数人写道:“我们看不出IEEPA对互惠关税和贩运关税幅度的关税有明确的国会授权。”“考虑到这些因素，我们得出结论，国会在制定《国际环境保护法》时，并没有授予总统广泛的权力，仅仅通过使用‘管制’一词来征收贩运性质的关税和互惠关税。。。“进口。”"
来自多数派的四名法官进一步做出了决定，决定IEEPA没有赋予特朗普发布任何关税的权力，而不仅仅是这两种关税。
他们写道，“政府对《国际环境保护法》的解释将是国会税收权力在功能上的无限授权。”
少数意见认为，其他四名法官不同意，认为特朗普宣布国家紧急状态足以成为“不寻常和非同寻常的威胁”，足以证明关税是合理的。
“IEEPA的语言，正如其历史所证实的那样，授权关税来监管进口，”法官写道。
案件是如何发生的
一群小企业和一个州联盟被起诉以阻止关税今年早些时候，特朗普总统在4月份发布一系列关税时，声称特朗普总统超越了很少使用的《国际紧急经济权力法》(IEEPA)规定的权限。
接下来的一个月，总部位于纽约的国际贸易法院宣布这些关税是非法的，侵犯了国会监管贸易的权力。特朗普政府很快对该决定提出上诉，随着法律程序的结束，该决定被搁置。
美国联邦巡回上诉法院于7月听取了关于关税的口头辩论，在此期间，法官小组表现出怀疑特朗普可以基于国家紧急状态来证明关税的合理性。
法官们指出，IEEPA的文本从未明确提到“关税”，也没有其他总统像特朗普一样试图利用该法律。
一位法官在6月份的辩论中评论道:“我最担心的一个问题是，IEEPA在任何地方都没有提到关税。”。"在这里，IEEPA甚至没有提到关税，甚至没有提到它."
在周五的决定之前，美国司法部长约翰·绍尔(John Sauer)先发制人地要求法院暂停他们的决定，以防止对正在进行的谈判和该国的贸易政策造成“严重损害”。
特朗普政府官员此前警告说，失去征收关税的能力将“导致危险的外交尴尬”，威胁到俄罗斯和乌克兰之间正在进行的谈判，“威胁到美国在国内外更广泛的战略利益。”
Trump’s global tariffs are unlawful, appeals court says
A federal appeals court has ruled that most of President Donald Trump'ssweeping global tariffsare unlawful, potentially dealing a significant blow to the president's effort to reshape the country's trade policy unilaterally.
In a 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump's authority to carry out most of his tariffs, agreeing with the lower court that Trump's actions were "invalid as contrary to law." However, the court delayed the impact of its decision through mid-October to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court, as the tariffs remain in effect.
"Because we agree that [International Emergency Economic Powers Act's] grant of presidential authority to 'regulate' imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm," the majority wrote.
The decision in effect tees up one of the most consequential legal questions for the Supreme Court about the scope of the president's authority on trade policy.
After Oct. 14, the court will return the case to the lower court to decide how theSupreme Court's recent decision limiting nationwide injunctionsaffects the decision.
Trump reacts to decision
In a post on his social media platform Friday evening, Trump rebuked the appeals court's decision, warning that a court order blocking the tariffs "would literally destroy the United States of America."
Previewing the legal challenge expected in the coming weeks, Trump called on the Supreme Court to rule that he has the power to impose tariffs unilaterally.
"Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter," Trump wrote.
What the decision says
In its decision Friday, the appeals court determined that only Congress, not the president alone, has the authority to impose tariffs, setting up a high-profile legal question for the Supreme Court regarding the scope of the president's power.
The decision centers on whether the authority to "regulate" imports, included in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, means the president can issue tariffs on his own.
Seven of the 11 judges said that the rarely used law does not give Trump the power to implement either his "reciprocal" tariffs or the "trafficking" tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico and China aimed at stopping the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders, writing that "tariffs are a core Congressional power."
"We discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs," the majority wrote. "Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term 'regulate . . . importation.'"
A subset of four judges from the majority took the decision even further, determining that IEEPA does not give Trump the power to issue any tariffs, not just the two types of tariffs in question.
"The Government's interpretation of IEEPA would be a functionally limitless delegation of Congressional taxation authority," they wrote.
In a minority opinion, four other judges disagreed, suggesting Trump's declaration of a national emergency is enough of an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to justify the tariffs.
"IEEPA's language, as confirmed by its history, authorizes tariffs to regulate importation," the judges wrote.
How the case came about
A group of small businesses and a coalition of statessued to block the tariffsearlier this year, arguing that President Trump had overstepped his authority under the rarely used International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he issued a flurry of tariffs in April.
The following month, the New York-based Court of International Trade declared the tariffs were unlawful and encroached on Congress's authority to regulate trade. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision, which was stayed as the legal process played out.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on the tariffs in July, during which time the panel of judgesappeared skepticalthat Trump could justify the tariffs based on a national emergency.
The judges noted that the text of the IEEPA never explicitly mentions "tariffs" and that no other president has attempted to utilize the law in the same manner as Trump has.
"One of the major concerns I have is that IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs anywhere," one judge remarked during the arguments in June. "Here, IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs -- doesn't even mention it."
Ahead of Friday's decision, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer preemptively asked the court to stay their decision to prevent "serious harms" to ongoing negotiations and the country's trade policy.
Trump administration officials had previously warned that losing the ability to issue tariffs would "lead to dangerous diplomatic embarrassment," threaten ongoing negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and "threaten broader U.S. strategic interests at home and abroad."
