美国联邦法院裁定特朗普越权暂停上月关税措施生效
2025年5月28日
美国联邦法院裁定，暂停特朗普政府4月2日宣布的一揽子关税措施生效，并裁定特朗普越权。美国国际贸易法院表示，IEEPA 并未授权任何全球性、报复性或贩运性关税令。全球性和报复性关税令超出了 IEEPA 授予总统通过关税手段监管进口的任何权力。贩运性关税令失败，因为它们并未应对这些关税令中提出的威胁。这一结论赋予原告依法获得判决的权利；由于法院进一步认定不存在任何实质性事实争议，因此将对美国作出简易判决，受质疑的关税令将被撤销，其实施将被永久禁止。
国际贸易法院推翻了特朗普上个月颁布的广泛“解放日”关税以及他在任期早期实施的其他关税，这对特朗普试图利用关税作为各种谈判筹码的政策议程的核心支柱之一造成了打击。
法院表示：“提交法院案件的问题是，1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）是否以授权总统对来自全球几乎所有国家的商品征收无限关税的形式授予这些权力。法院认为IEEPA并未赋予总统这种无限的权力，并撤销了根据该法案征收的受质疑的关税。”
在特朗普政府执政之前，《国际紧急经济权力法案》（IEEPA）从未被用于总统授权征收关税。IEEPA允许总统针对美国面临的外国威胁采取紧急行动，包括制裁和资产冻结，但并未具体提及关税。
法院补充道：“基于上述理由，法院认为《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）并未授权任何全球性、报复性或贩运性关税令。全球性关税令和报复性关税令超越了IEEPA赋予总统的任何权力，即通过关税手段监管进口。贩运性关税令失败，因为它们并未应对这些关税令中提出的威胁。”
本次诉讼由美国非营利、无党派诉讼机构自由正义中心发起的诉讼，代表5间受关税影响的美国小企业提出，是对特朗普关税政策的首个重大法律挑战。
CONCLUSION
The court holds for the foregoing reasons that IEEPA does not authorize any of the
Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff
Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means
of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those
orders. This conclusion entitles Plaintiffs to judgment as a matter of law; as the court further finds
no genuine dispute as to any material fact, summary judgment will enter against the United States.
See USCIT R. 56. The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently
enjoined.
There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are
unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all. “[A]ll Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, and “[t]he tax is uniform when
it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.” Head
Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 594 (1884); see also Siemens Am., Inc. v. United States, 692 F.2d
1382, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1982); Nat’l Corn Growers Ass’n v. Baker, 10 CIT 517, 521, 643
F. Supp. 626, 630–31 (1986) (noting “the statutory and constitutional mandate of uniformity in the
interpretation of the international trade laws”).
Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment are granted, and their Motions for Preliminary
Injunction are denied as moot. Judgment will enter accordingly.
By the panel.
Dated: May 28, 2025
New York, New York