摘要：华盛顿时间5月28日（周三），美国一家联邦贸易法院阻止了唐纳德·特朗普总统根据紧急权力法对进口商品征收全面关税的政策。
欢迎各位条友阅读、转发、收藏、关注和留下宝贵评论！[作揖][作揖][作揖]喜欢阅读英语的条友可跳过中文直接阅读后附英语原文。
特朗普4月2日宣布对全球进口商品加征关税在美国内引发多起误打诉讼
据美联社2025年5月29日报道，华盛顿时间5月28日（周三），美国一家联邦贸易法院阻止了唐纳德·特朗普总统根据紧急权力法对进口商品征收全面关税的政策。
因特朗普向全球挥舞关税大棒引发美国股票、债券市场混乱，伤害美国经济和企业与消费者权益，一些公司和12个美国州政府状告特朗普超越职权，违犯法律，要求法院裁决其通过紧急权力法对进口商品征收全面关税无效，目前至少有七起诉讼对特朗普的关税提出质疑。
根据美国相关法律，改变关税政策通常需经国会批准，但特朗普称他有权采取行动，因为美国的贸易逆差已构成国家紧急状态。他4月2日采取的对全球大多数国家征收关税导致市场大幅震荡，不少经济学家甚至警告将导致美国经济衰退。
纽约联邦贸易法院的这一判决是对包括葡萄酒进口商V.O.S. Selections在内的一群小企业主对提起的诉讼的判决。这些公司老板称，特朗普的关税已对他们造成重大冲击，导致企业可能无法生存。
原告诉状称，紧急权力法并未授权使用关税，即便授权，贸易逆差也不符合该法要求，因为紧急状态只能由“不寻常且非凡的威胁”引发，而美国已连续49年对全球其他国家保持贸易逆差，根本是什么紧急情况。
经过多次听证，位于纽约的国际贸易法院的一个三人法官小组终于做出了这一裁决。法院在提及1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）时写道：“全球及报复性关税命令超出了该法赋予总统通过关税监管进口的任何权力。”
带头发起12个州对特朗普关税政策诉讼的俄勒冈州总检察长丹·雷菲尔德表示：“这一裁决重申了法律的重要性，贸易决策不能由总统随心所欲地做出。”
特朗普政府在应诉时辩称，法院曾批准时任总统理查德·尼克松在1971年紧急使用关税，且只有国会而非法院能裁定总统宣布紧急状态的理由是否符合法律这一“政治”问题。
虽然白宫仍未立即对法院的裁决置评，但预计特朗普政府将会对这一裁决提出上诉。因而，这些关于关税的诉讼可能会一直上诉到最高法院，并由最高法院作出最后裁决。
但纽约联邦贸易法院的这一判决毕竟是对特朗普政府肆意挥舞关税大棒的沉重一击，也为其他正等待审理的诉讼判决提供了判例。
Federal trade court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law. By LINDSAY WHITEHURST, WASHINGTON (AP). May 29, 2025
A federal trade court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law.
The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump has exceeded his authority, left U.S. trade policy dependent on his whims and unleashed economic chaos.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic powers Act.
The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
At least seven lawsuits are challenging the levies, the centerpiece of Trump’s trade policy.
Tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, but Trump says he has the power to act because the country’s trade deficits amount to a national emergency. He imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world at one point, sending markets reeling.
The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit does not meet the law’s requirement that an emergency be triggered only by an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.
Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America’s massive and longstanding trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.
His administration argues that courts approved then-President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in 1971, and that only Congress, and not the courts, can determine the “political” question of whether the president’s rationale for declaring an emergency complies with the law.
Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs shook global financial markets and led many economists to downgrade the outlook for U.S. economic growth. So far, though, the tariffs appear to have had little impact on the world’s largest economy.
The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive.
A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.
来源：读行品世事一点号
