特别篇：特朗普关税政策遭否决

来自《纽约时报》，我是纳塔莉·基特罗夫。

From The New York Times, I'm Natalie Kitroef.

这是《每日新闻》的特别节目。

This is a special episode of The Daily.

我们有一个突发新闻通知。

We have a breaking news alert for you.

它终于来了。

It's finally here.

最高法院就特朗普总统的关税作出了裁决。

The Supreme Court has made a decision on president Trump's tariffs.

这是一个重大的案件，一项重要的裁决，而且现在揭晓了

This is a huge case, a big ruling, and it comes in

就在今天，最高法院以6比3的历史性裁决，判定特朗普总统广泛的全球关税非法，危及了总统第二任期的核心政策。

right Today, in a historic six three decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that president Trump's sweeping global tariffs are illegal, jeopardizing a pillar of the president's second term.

推翻了特朗普总统经济政策的基石，对经济产生深远影响，当然也对总统权力产生影响。

Invalidating what is the cornerstone of president Trump's economic policy, sweeping implications for the economy, and, of course, for presidential power.

这对本届政府来说是一次巨大、毁灭性且影响深远的打击。

This is a massive devastating and consequential blow for this administration.

这也很罕见地对特朗普提出了批评。

It's also a rare rebuke of Trump.

我与我的同事亚当·利普塔克讨论了这一裁决的法律逻辑及其可能产生的巨大影响。

I spoke with my colleague, Adam Liptack, about the legal logic of the ruling and its potentially seismic impacts.

今天是2月20日，星期五。

It's Friday, February 20.

亚当，感谢你在如此繁忙的新闻日抽出时间与我们交谈。

Adam, thank you for taking time to speak with us today on a very busy news day.

很高兴能来这里。

It's good to be here.

我们今天在周五下午向您播报，因为最高法院发生了一件非同寻常的事情。

So we're coming to you on a Friday afternoon because something quite extraordinary has happened on the Supreme Court.

法院推翻了特朗普总统的多项关税政策。

The court has struck down many of President Trump's tariffs.

这些关税不仅是他经济政策的核心。

These tariffs aren't just at the core of his economic policy.

它们也是他用来在全球范围内施加巨大影响力的主要工具。

They are also the tool that he has used to wield just enormous power across the world.

它们一直是他主要的杠杆，而现在却被推翻了。

They have been his main source of leverage, and now they've been invalidated.

虽然我们预感法院可能会做出这样的裁决，但当这一现实真正发生时，其冲击力却截然不同。

And while we have the sense that the court might rule this way, the reality of it actually happening in this moment hits much differently.

你是这么看的吗？

Is that how you're seeing it?

这是一直对特朗普总统非常有利的法院。

Well, this is a court that's been very favorable to president Trump.

但在这里，我们看到了第一项关于其国内和国际计划核心内容的重大辩论和实质裁决。

But here we have the first major argued merits decision on really the centerpiece of a domestic and international program.

法院表示，他所依赖的主要法律并未授权他做自己想做的事。

And the court says that the main statute he relies on does not authorize him to do what he wants to do.

所以，这是一次来自一个并非所有人都预期会对抗特朗普总统的法院的重大打击。

So this is a major blow from a court that not everyone expected to stand up to president Trump.

好的。

Okay.

我想深入探讨这项裁决的具体内容，看看法院为何做出这样的判决。

I wanna dig into the specifics of the decision why the court ruled the way it did.

你能给我详细解释一下，多数意见为何否决这些关税吗？

Can you just walk me through what the majority's reasoning was for rejecting these tariffs?

这个案件涉及一项国会法案，《国际紧急经济权力法》。

So this case is about a congressional statute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

这并不是关于宪法的问题。

So this is not about the constitution.

而是关于国会是否依据这项法律授权总统实施关税。

It's about whether congress has, under this law, authorized presidents to impose tariffs.

这一直是个牵强的解释，因为这项法律中根本没有出现‘关税’或类似‘税费’这样的词语。

And it's always been a stretch because this law doesn't include the word tariffs or a synonym like duties.

相反，这是一段杂乱无章的文字，包含了许多词汇，而政府只关注其中两个词——‘进口监管’，但即便这两个词之间也隔着另外十六个词。

Instead, it's kind of a word salad that includes a lot of words, and the administration is focused on two of those words, the regulation of importation, and even those words are separated by 16 other words.

首席大法官罗伯茨代表六位大法官表示，这种说法根本承担不起政府试图赋予它的分量；国会拥有征税权，而关税当然是一种进口税。

And chief justice Roberts writing for six justices says that just doesn't bear the weight that the administration wants to place on it, that congress has the power to tax, and tariffs are, of course, an import tax.

如果国会希望授权总统，它当然可以这样做，但在这里它并没有这么做。

And congress, if it wants to authorize the president, can, but it didn't here.

罗伯茨首席大法官表示，监管并不等同于征税。

And regulation is not the same as taxation, chief justice Roberts says.

因此，他认为这其实是一个相当直接的语法分析问题。

So he thinks this is a fairly straightforward grammatical exercise.

您是说，首席大法官实际上是在仔细研读这项法律，并指出：如果看其中的实际措辞，它并没有授权总统行使这种权力、征收这类关税。

The chief justice, you're saying, is basically doing a close reading of this statute and saying, if you look at the actual language in it, it does not authorize the president to wield this kind of power, to impose these kinds of tariffs.

没错。

That's right.

有五位大法官同意他的观点。

And five justices agree with him.

对。

Right.

说到这一点，亚当，这是一项6比3的裁决。

And to that point, Adam, this was a six three decision.

我在阅读这些意见时注意到，最高法院的保守派法官们意见分歧。

And what stood out to me as I was looking through the opinions on this was that the conservatives on the court were split.

你能跟我讲讲这个情况吗？

Can you tell me about that?

因为这看起来非常重要。

Because that seemed very important.

是的。

Yes.

我们已经习惯了6比3的裁决。

So we're used to six three decisions.

对吧，娜塔莉？

Right, Natalie?

但通常的六比三裁决是六名共和党任命的大法官对三名民主党任命的大法官。

But the usual six three decision is the six Republican appointees versus the three Democratic appointees.

对。

Right.

在这里，首席大法官和两位特朗普任命的大法官——戈萨奇和巴雷特——加入了自由派阵营，而持异议的是托马斯、阿利托和卡瓦诺大法官。

Here we have the chief justice and two Trump appointees, justices Gorsuch and Barrett joining the liberals, and then in dissent, justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh.

在如此具有重大影响的案件中出现这种混合搭配，必须明确指出，娜塔莉，这关于总统权力是一个重大而重大的表态。

This kind of mix and match in a truly consequential case, and this to be clear, Natalie, this is a major, major statement on presidential power.

看到保守派内部出现分歧，这相当不寻常。

And to see the right side of the court disagree is quite unusual.

好的。

Okay.

我想了解保守派之间在这一问题上的分歧实质是什么？

I wanna understand that, the substance of the disagreement between the conservatives on this?

因为自由派不支持特朗普以这种方式行使总统权力，这可能并不会让人感到意外。

Because it might not surprise people that the liberals were not backing Trump's ability to use presidential power in this way.

帮我理解一下保守派之间是如何分歧的。

Help me understand how the conservatives disagreed.

这实际上是关于权力分立的不同理念。

It's really a different conception of the separation of powers.

由首席大法官领导的保守派认为，国会并未授权这些关税，他们认为国会在这个领域应起主导作用。

The conservatives led by the chief justice who thought congress did not authorize these tariffs think congress has the leading role in this area.

国会拥有征税的权力。

Congress has the power to tax.

如果国会要告诉总统可以做某事，必须明确表达，不能靠推断，而要用清晰直接的语言。

And if congress is going to tell the president he can do something, it has to say so clearly, not by inference, but in plain language.

持不同意见的另外三位保守派法官则更愿意从宪法结构和总统职责中推断，认为即使这项法律可能不够明确，总统在这个领域仍拥有权力。

The other three conservatives in dissent were much more willing to infer from the structure of the constitution and from the duties of the president to believe that the president has power in this area even if this statute maybe is not as clear as it might be.

我认为，尼尔·戈萨奇大法官的协同意见书中有一段话，很好地概括并解释了这场争议的本质。

And I think there's a passage in justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion that kind of crystallizes and explains the nature of the dispute.

他说，当出现一些紧迫问题时，绕过国会确实可能很有诱惑力。

He says, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises.

但立法过程的审议性质正是其设计的初衷。

But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design.

通过这一过程，国家能够汇聚人民民选代表的集体智慧，而不仅仅是某一派别或个人的见解。

Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people's elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.

显然，他并没有提及特朗普总统，但这种说法的语气确实暗示了某人正在随意使用关税。

Now, obviously, he's not mentioning president Trump, but the music of that does hint at someone who is using tariffs impulsively.

他在这里所说的，我想让你帮我准确翻译一下，意思是：立法过程虽然繁琐，但很有价值，本应在这里得到应用。

And what he's saying there, and I want you to just translate it for me to put a fine point on it, is the legislative process may be cumbersome, but it is valuable, and it should have been applied here.

对。

Right.

审议是有价值的。

There's a value to deliberation.

共识是有价值的。

There's a value to consensus.

获得支持是有价值的。

There's a value to buy in.

让人民了解规则，而不是凭冲动和一时兴起来治理，这一点也有其价值。

And there's a value to letting people know what the rules are rather than governing by impulse and whim.

好的。

Okay.

我想谈谈这一决定的实际影响。

I wanna turn to the practical implications of this decision.

我知道我们才刚刚开始理解这一切的意义，但我还是想问你，亚当，一些人们此刻迫切想知道的问题，其中最重要的是：关税现在会怎样？

And I know we're just beginning to digest what all of this means, but I wanna ask you, Adam, some of the questions that I think people are asking urgently at this moment, chief among them, what happens to the tariffs now?

它们被取消了吗？

Are they gone?

根据1977年法律实施的关税已经取消了。

So the tariffs that were imposed under this 1977 law are gone.

但这并不是特朗普总统实施的所有关税。

That's not every tariff president Trump has imposed.

这些被取消的是他以应对毒品贸易为由实施的关税，以及他试图为解决贸易逆差而加征的关税，但依据其他法律实施的关税仍然有效。

It's tariffs that he justified by trying to address the drug trade and tariffs he tried to impose to address trade deficits, but tariffs under other laws remain in place.

所以这并不是一个完整的答案。

So this is not a complete answer.

这不是简单的加税或减税、是或否的问题，但它确实在短期内至少移除了他大部分的恐怖主义计划。

It's not up or down tariffs, yes or no, but it does take out, in the short term at least, a great bulk of his terrorist program.

好的。

Okay.

但是，亚当，我们刚刚还看到特朗普举行了一场新闻发布会，即使以他的标准来看，这场发布会也相当激烈。

But, Adam, we also had Trump give this press conference just a little while ago, which was even by his standards quite strident.

在他的发言中，他表示实际上要加倍推进这些刚刚被裁定为非法的关税。

And in his comments, he said he was gonna double down, actually, on these tariffs that had just been ruled illegal.

他说他找到了利用其他授权来重启这些关税的途径。

He said he'd found an avenue to revive them using other authorities.

所以，首先，你对这场新闻发布会有什么看法？

So first of all, what did you think of the press conference?

其次，我们对他试图解决法院给他带来的问题有哪些了解？

And second, what do we know about his efforts to find a solution to the problem the court has presented him with?

非常感谢您莅临。

Well, thank you very much for being here.

这

The

这是一场极其激烈的新闻发布会。

So it was an extraordinarily combative press conference.

我对某些法官感到羞愧，绝对为他们缺乏勇气去做正确的事而感到羞愧。

And I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right.

他说他对多数派的大法官感到羞愧。

He said he was ashamed of the justices in the majority.

他说他们不爱国，对宪法不忠。

He said they were unpatriotic and disloyal to the constitution.

而且

And

正如大法官卡瓦诺，他的声望如此之高，您必须亲眼看看。

As justice Kavanaugh, whose stock has gone so well, you'd have to see.

我为他感到骄傲，他在异议意见中写道。

I'm so proud of him, wrote in his dissent.

总统援引了异议意见，称正如其所说

The president leaned on the dissent to say, as it did

这项裁决可能并不会实质性地限制总统未来下令征收关税的能力。

The decision might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs going forward.

尽管法院推翻了此前的关税，但总统仍可采取其他途径。

While the tariffs before the court were struck down, there are other avenues the president can pursue.

确实如此，他说得对。

And it does, and he's right.

事实上，我可以收取比之前高得多的费用。

In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging.

他并没有错。

And he's not wrong.

法院并未触及多项其他法律，这些法律赋予了他另行征收不同关税的独立权力。

The court did not touch a number of other statutes, which gave him separate authority to impose yet different tariffs.

因此，立即生效，所有根据第232条和现有第301条实施的国家安全关税。

Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under section two thirty two and existing section three zero one tariffs.

总统表示，他将援引这些权力。

And the president said he was gonna invoke those authorities.

他说这些程序稍微繁琐一些，但能让他实现自己的目标，并且可以完成周五法院剥夺他的大部分权限。

And he said they're a little more cumbersome, but they're gonna let him do what he wants to do, and he can get done a great deal of what the court took away from him on Friday.

如果你有问题，可以告诉我们。

If you have a few questions, you can let us know.

但为了结束

But just to end

为了更好地理解这一点，特朗普所说的他将要做的，本质上是转向一个备选方案，即政府可以寻找其他法律依据来实施类似的关税。

just to to make sense of that, what Trump is saying he's gonna do is basically revert to a plan b here that the administration can go out, find other legal justifications to pursue similar tariffs.

是这样吗？

Is that right?

是的。

Yeah.

有一些法律使用了'关税'这个词，并规定总统在特定情况下可以征收关税。

And there are statutes that use the word tariffs and say the president can impose tariffs in in certain situations.

你知道，这些情况通常更狭窄，也通常是时间受限的。

You know, more narrow situations, typically, more time limited situations, typically.

但国会知道如何赋予总统关税权力。

But congress knows how to give the president tariffs authority.

多数意见认为，1977年的《国际紧急经济权力法》不属于这些情况之一。

The majority said IEPA, the 1977 law, is not one of those situations.

根据你对这些其他授权的描述，是否可以说它们的性质更为有限，更像是使用手术刀而非钝器？

And is it fair to say based on the way you're describing these other authorities that they're more perhaps limited in nature that we'd be talking more about a scalpel approach than a blunt instrument?

是的。

Yeah.

说得很好。

That's well put.

好的。

Okay.

所以无论如何，即使特朗普试图通过其他途径重新实施关税，最高法院也已认定他目前实施的关税是非法的。

So either way, even if Trump does pursue this kind of other route to get tariffs back in place, The Supreme Court has found that the ones that he has been implementing are not legal.

因此，我想知道，这对所有支付了这些已被宣布无效的关税成本的企业和消费者意味着什么？

So I'm wondering what that means for all of the businesses and consumers who have been paying for the cost of these tariffs that have now been declared invalid.

企业能获得退款吗？

Can businesses get refunds?

那里有哪些选择？

What are the options there?

这是一个重要的问题。

So that's an important question.

多数意见并未涉及这一点。

The majority does not address it.

好的。

Okay.

在异议意见中，卡瓦诺大法官表示，这已经造成了一团混乱。

In dissent, justice Kavanaugh says this has created a mess.

这将需要诉讼。

It will require litigation.

一些公司已经提起诉讼。

Some companies have already sued.

许多公司现在将提起诉讼。

Many companies will now sue.

卡瓦诺大法官指出一个有趣的观点：一些企业已经支付了关税，但将成本转嫁给了消费者。

Justice Kavanaugh makes the interesting point that some of these businesses have paid the tariffs but have passed the cost along to consumers.

所以，如果它们能获得关税的退款，可能会双赢。

So they might get a win win if they're reimbursed for the tariffs.

这是一个复杂的情况。

It's an unwieldy situation.

简短的回答，娜塔莉，是我们不知道这些要求退款的诉讼会如何发展。

And the short answer, Natalie, is we don't know what happens to these suits claiming refunds.

好的。

Okay.

所以听起来，在接下来的几天和几周里，还有很多事情需要理清。

So it sounds like there is a lot to sort through over the coming days and weeks.

我想退一步问问，亚当，我们该如何看待最高法院当前的状况？

I just wanna step back, Adam, and ask, what are we to make of this Supreme Court at this moment?

我认为很多人对法院的印象是，这是特朗普的法院。

I think a lot of people have this impression of the court as Trump's court.

他任命了其中三位大法官。

He appointed three of the justices on it.

目前保守派以六比三占据多数。

There is a six to three conservative majority.

正如你在我们对话开始时提到的，这一多数经常做出有利于他的裁决。

And as you mentioned at the start of our conversation, that majority has regularly ruled in ways that favor him.

但现在，法院却在总统经济政策——在某种程度上也是其外交政策——的核心问题上，以一种相当重大的方式背离了总统的立场。

But now we have the court going against the president in a pretty major way on the pillar of his economic, and in some ways, his foreign policy.

那么，我们该如何解读这一点呢？

So how should we interpret that?

让我提出两个想法。

So let me throw out two ideas.

第一，你可以说我天真。

One, call me naive.

也许他们只是试图解释法律条文，让法律得到正确执行。

Maybe they're just trying to interpret the statute and get the law right.

但第二，更认真地探讨这个问题。

But two, engaging with the question a little bit more in earnest.

这个法院自2024年作出裁决，授予特朗普总统在涉嫌企图颠覆2020年大选的起诉中广泛豁免权以来，又接连发布了大约二十项紧急命令，批准了他第二任期议程的若干内容。

This is a court that starting with the 2024 decision granting president Trump broad immunity from a prosecution charging him with an attempt to subvert the twenty twenty election and followed by, well, maybe 20 emergency orders, green lighting aspects of his second administration agenda.

我们一直有种印象，认为法院站在特朗普一边。

We've sort of got the impression that the court is in the bag for Trump.

但那些紧急申请是临时性和过渡性的，也许在这些情况下对总统给予一定程度的尊重是合理的。

But those emergency applications are temporary provisional and maybe are situations where some deference to the president is warranted.

这项关税裁决是特朗普第二任期中首个经过正式辩论并作出实质判决的案件，涉及特朗普的政策。

This tariffs decision is the first argued merits decision of the second Trump term involving a Trump program.

而看到法院以6比3的投票反对总统，这将使法院呈现出不同的形象，而且这可能并非偶然。

And to see the court stand up six three go against the president, cast the court in a different light, and it may not be a one off.

有理由认为，另一项重要的特朗普倡议——出生公民权——将面临一个持怀疑态度的法院。

There's reason to think that another major Trump initiative, birthright citizenship, is gonna face a skeptical court.

有理由认为，他试图罢免联邦储备委员会主席的举动不会成功，我们或许正进入一个最高法院成为制约特朗普总统野心的制衡力量的时代。

There's reason to think that his attempt to remove a leader of the Federal Reserve Board is not going to succeed, we may be entering an era where the Supreme Court shows itself to be a counterweight to the ambitions of president Trump.

而这一切都发生在一个有趣的时刻，因为周二晚上，总统将发表国情咨文演讲，如果像往常一样，四到五位大法官出席周二的国情咨文，身着黑袍坐在总统身旁，这场景将显得非常奇特。

And all of this is happening in an interesting moment because on Tuesday night, the president will give his state of the union address, and it's going to be a very odd tableau if, as has been historically the case, four or five justices turn up at the State of the Union address on Tuesday, sit very close to the president in their black robes.

而如果这场新闻发布会能作为参考，他们可能会被总统训斥，指责他们因判决反对他而显得不忠和不爱国。

And if this news conference is any guide, get lectured to by the president about how they have been disloyal and unpatriotic by ruling against him.

这或许会以一种我们前所未见的方式，展现政府两大分支之间的冲突。

And it may capture and illustrate a clash between two branches of the government in a way we've never seen before.

好吧，亚当，非常感谢你来参加节目。

Well, Adam, thanks so much for coming on the show.

谢谢你，娜塔莉。

Thank you, Natalie.

如需了解亚当·利普塔克对当前最紧迫法律动态的更多见解，请订阅他的通讯《庭审纪要》。

For more insights from Adam Liptak on the most urgent legal developments of the moment, sign up for his newsletter, The Docket.

本期节目由罗布·齐普科和卡洛斯·普里埃托制作，里基·诺维茨基协助。

Today's episode was produced by Rob Zipko and Carlos Prieto with help from Ricky Novetsky.

本节目由德文·泰勒剪辑，音乐由丹·鲍威尔创作，音频工程由丹·鲍威尔负责。

It was edited by Devin Taylor, contains music by Dan Powell, and was engineered by Dan Powell.

以上就是《每日新闻》的全部内容。

That's it for The Daily.

我是娜塔莉·基特罗夫。

I'm Natalie Kitroef.

周日再见。

See you on Sunday.