<p>作者：迪特里希·克瑙斯</p>
<p>6 月 10 日（路透社）- 一家联邦上诉法院周二允许唐纳德·特朗普总统的最广泛关税继续生效，同时审查下级法院阻止这些关税的裁决，理由是特朗普在实施这些关税时超出了他的权限。</p>
<p>华盛顿特区的美国联邦巡回上诉法院的裁决意味着特朗普可以继续执行他对大多数美国贸易伙伴的 “解放日” 关税，以及对加拿大、中国和墨西哥征收的另一组关税，至少在此期间是如此。</p>
<p>上诉法院尚未裁定这些关税是否符合特朗普引用的紧急经济权力法案，但在上诉进行期间，允许这些关税继续有效。</p>
<p>特朗普将这些关税作为与美国贸易伙伴谈判的筹码，其反复无常的性质令市场震惊，并使各类公司在管理供应链、生产、人员配置和价格时面临困扰。</p>
<p>该裁决对其他根据更传统法律权威征收的关税没有影响，例如对钢铁和铝进口的关税。美国国际贸易法院的一个三名法官小组于 5 月 28 日裁定，美国宪法赋予国会而非总统征税和征收关税的权力，且总统在引用国际紧急经济权力法案时超出了他的权限，该法律旨在应对国家紧急情况下的 “异常和非凡” 威胁。特朗普政府迅速对该裁决提出上诉，华盛顿的联邦巡回法院在考虑是否实施长期暂停时，次日暂停了下级法院的裁决。</p>
<p>该裁决是在一对诉讼中作出的，其中一个由非党派的自由正义中心代表五家从受关税影响国家进口商品的小型美国企业提起，另一个由 12 个美国州提起。特朗普声称根据 IEEPA 拥有广泛的设定关税的权力。1977 年的法律历史上通常用于对美国的敌人实施制裁或冻结其资产。特朗普是第一位利用该法案征收关税的美国总统。特朗普表示，2 月份对加拿大、中国和墨西哥征收的关税是为了打击在美国边境的非法芬太尼贩运，这一说法遭到三国否认，而 4 月份对所有美国贸易伙伴征收的普遍关税则是对美国贸易赤字的回应。各州和小型企业认为这些关税不是解决这些问题的合法或适当方式，而小型企业则认为，美国几十年来购买的商品超过出口的做法并不构成触发 IEEPA 的紧急情况。至少还有五个其他法院案件挑战了根据紧急经济权力法案所依据的关税，包括其他小型企业和加利福尼亚州。其中一个案件在华盛顿特区的联邦法院也初步裁定反对这些关税，目前没有法院支持特朗普所声称的无限紧急关税权力。</p>

<p>一个联邦上诉法院已允许特朗普总统的关税继续生效，同时审查下级法院阻止这些关税的裁决，理由是特朗普超越了权限。美国联邦巡回上诉法院的裁决意味着特朗普可以继续对来自多个国家的进口商品征收关税。法院尚未决定这些关税在紧急经济权力法下的合法性。这些关税导致了市场波动和供应链中断，小企业和各州对其合法性提出了持续的法律挑战</p>

<p>By Dietrich Knauth</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：迪特里希·克瑙斯</p>
</div><p>June 10 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump’s most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>6 月 10 日（路透社）- 一家联邦上诉法院周二允许唐纳德·特朗普总统的最广泛关税继续生效，同时审查下级法院阻止这些关税的裁决，理由是特朗普在实施这些关税时超出了他的权限。</p>
</div><p>The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his “Liberation Day” tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>华盛顿特区的美国联邦巡回上诉法院的裁决意味着特朗普可以继续执行他对大多数美国贸易伙伴的 “解放日” 关税，以及对加拿大、中国和墨西哥征收的另一组关税，至少在此期间是如此。</p>
</div><p>The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>上诉法院尚未裁定这些关税是否符合特朗普引用的紧急经济权力法案，但在上诉进行期间，允许这些关税继续有效。</p>
</div><p>The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>特朗普将这些关税作为与美国贸易伙伴谈判的筹码，其反复无常的性质令市场震惊，并使各类公司在管理供应链、生产、人员配置和价格时面临困扰。</p>
</div><p>The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该裁决对其他根据更传统法律权威征收的关税没有影响，例如对钢铁和铝进口的关税。美国国际贸易法院的一个三名法官小组于 5 月 28 日裁定，美国宪法赋予国会而非总统征税和征收关税的权力，且总统在引用国际紧急经济权力法案时超出了他的权限，该法律旨在应对国家紧急情况下的 “异常和非凡” 威胁。特朗普政府迅速对该裁决提出上诉，华盛顿的联邦巡回法院在考虑是否实施长期暂停时，次日暂停了下级法院的裁决。</p>
</div><p>The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该裁决是在一对诉讼中作出的，其中一个由非党派的自由正义中心代表五家从受关税影响国家进口商品的小型美国企业提起，另一个由 12 个美国州提起。特朗普声称根据 IEEPA 拥有广泛的设定关税的权力。1977 年的法律历史上通常用于对美国的敌人实施制裁或冻结其资产。特朗普是第一位利用该法案征收关税的美国总统。特朗普表示，2 月份对加拿大、中国和墨西哥征收的关税是为了打击在美国边境的非法芬太尼贩运，这一说法遭到三国否认，而 4 月份对所有美国贸易伙伴征收的普遍关税则是对美国贸易赤字的回应。各州和小型企业认为这些关税不是解决这些问题的合法或适当方式，而小型企业则认为，美国几十年来购买的商品超过出口的做法并不构成触发 IEEPA 的紧急情况。至少还有五个其他法院案件挑战了根据紧急经济权力法案所依据的关税，包括其他小型企业和加利福尼亚州。其中一个案件在华盛顿特区的联邦法院也初步裁定反对这些关税，目前没有法院支持特朗普所声称的无限紧急关税权力。</p>
</div>

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, u.s. Appeals court decides

- 美国上诉法院允许特朗普的关税继续生效，待审查下级法院裁决。  
- 特朗普的 “解放日” 关税影响大部分贸易伙伴，市场反应剧烈。  
- 诉讼由小企业和 12 个州提起，质疑关税的合法性和适当性。

美国上诉法院决定，特朗普关税可能在上诉过程中继续有效