<figure class="image"><img src="https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2026/f3e4588f985c9423d7ec21416aa1d042?x-oss-process=style/lg" alt="" width="1558" height="1138" original-src="https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2026/f3e4588f985c9423d7ec21416aa1d042"/></figure><p>[新加坡] 美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的关税政策可能在周三（1 月 14 日）面临重大考验，届时美国最高法院将作出裁决。</p><p>1 月 14 日被定为 “意见日”，标志着法院可能决定特朗普于 2025 年 4 月首次对大多数全球经济体实施的关税是否合法。</p><p>此次会议定于周三上午（东部时间）举行，全球各地的公司都在等待这一决定，无论结果如何，都可能对全球市场产生影响。</p><p>裁决的潜在结果是什么？它将如何影响全球公司？《商业时报》解释了此案的背景和可能的情景。</p><h2 id="fxi588ft6"><strong>此案的内容是什么？</strong></h2><p>对关税的挑战最初是由一些受到特朗普关税影响的小企业提出的，其中包括五家面临破产的企业，时间是在 4 月，同时还有 12 个美国州提起了诉讼。</p><p>争议的焦点是特朗普于 4 月 2 日实施的 “解放日” 关税，对大多数进口商品征收 10% 至 50% 的关税。</p><p>这些诉讼最初在包括美国国际贸易法院和哥伦比亚特区地方法院在内的下级法院提起。下级法院在 2025 年裁定总统超越了其宪法权力。由于特朗普政府提出上诉，进口税仍然有效，给政府提供了在最高法院提出其论点的时间。</p><p>这些诉讼最终在 2025 年 11 月合并并在最高法院进行辩论，特朗普政府请求加快审理，认为此案 “极其重要”。</p><p>在辩论中，保守派和自由派法官似乎都质疑特朗普通过引用 1977 年旨在应对国家紧急情况的法律所实施的关税是否符合宪法。</p><p>根据美国联邦法律《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA），美国总统被授权在面对对美国的 “异常和非凡威胁” 时调节国际贸易，但该法律并未提及关税。</p><p>特朗普还引用该法律对中国、加拿大和墨西哥实施关税，称滥用止痛药芬太尼和非法毒品进入美国构成国家紧急情况。</p><figure class="image"><img src="https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2026/a1a634dc0c847849a6d5b9b877ccc6bb?x-oss-process=style/lg" alt="" width="1452" height="1062" original-src="https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2026/a1a634dc0c847849a6d5b9b877ccc6bb"/></figure><h2 id="ay6khvv3o"><strong>关税会被裁定为非法吗？</strong></h2><p>BT 采访的分析师认为，关税至少在某种程度上会被裁定为违宪。</p><p>“显然没有任何依据，例如国家紧急情况可以根据 IEEPA 紧急权力来证明这些关税的实施，” Iseas-Yusof Ishak 研究所的 Jayant Menon 博士表示。</p><p>富兰克林邓普顿投资公司的首席市场策略师 Stephen Dover 表示，最高法院可能会无效化特朗普在国家紧急情况下广泛实施关税的权力。</p><p>“即使法院没有完全推翻所有内容，它仍然可以通过要求声称的紧急情况与具体关税救济之间建立更紧密的联系来缩小操作范围，” 他说。</p><p>与此同时，预测市场认为法院会裁定反对关税，Polymarket 交易者为特朗普政府的裁决赋予了 29% 的可能性。</p><h2 id="ysd4b5hm7"><strong>情景 1：关税被裁定为非法</strong></h2><p>如果对特朗普的关税作出不利裁决，将削弱总统的标志性经济政策，并使他自重返白宫以来遭遇最大的法律失败。</p><p>这也将为可能复杂的法律斗争奠定基础，涉及到美国进口商迄今为止支付的数十亿美元关税的退款，已有超过 1000 家公司在法庭上排队。</p><p>但分析师认为，这样的裁决远未意味着特朗普的关税政策结束，他可能会寻找 IEEPA 以外的途径来实施关税。</p><p>“他可能会追求其他替代方案来实施这些关税，因为这是他整体经济计划的关键部分，” Menon 博士表示。</p><p>Menon 博士指出，美国总统可以根据《美国贸易扩展法》第 232 和 301 条继续征收关税，这赋予总统根据国家安全的理由修改进口或对不公平贸易行为进行报复的权力。</p><p>特朗普政府已经根据第 232 条实施了特定行业的关税，这些关税在最高法院案件中并未受到审查，包括对来自东南亚国家的钢铁、铝、铜和太阳能电池板的关税。</p><p>然而，裁定反对使用 IEEPA 将剥夺政府以与之前相同的速度实施这些关税的能力。</p><p>“这意味着白宫将不得不使用更慢、更有程序约束的工具，这需要调查和记录，” Dover 说。</p><h2 id="zecxk599p"><strong>情景 2：关税被裁定为合法</strong></h2><p>如果最高法院维持使用 IEEPA 实施关税，专家指出，这仍将为市场提供在经历数月不确定性后对关税政策的清晰认识。</p><p>“如果我们在周三上午得到裁决，企业可以开始重新定价真正的关税政策——如果维持，则是持久的；如果被推翻，则是逐步退出计划，” Dover 说。</p><p>这可能为全球公司提供关键的规划清晰度，包括那些考虑将供应链转移到东南亚以规避对其他国家的关税的公司。</p><p>“决定是否将增量产能分配给东盟的公司被迫将关税视为一个不断变化的目标，” Dover 说。</p><p>然而，这样的裁决将有效地确认总统在美国贸易政策中的更广泛执行权，引入新的不确定性因素到全球投资决策中。</p><p>“这使得企业更有理由多元化供应链，持有额外库存，并推迟一些跨境资本支出，” 多佛指出。</p><p>阿伯丁投资的新兴市场经济学家迈克尔·兰汉姆指出，若法院裁决支持特朗普政府，可能进一步鼓励该政府将关税作为关键的外交政策工具。</p><p>这紧随总统本周早些时候对与伊朗 “做生意” 的国家征收 25% 关税的举措，以支持全国范围内对其政府的抗议活动。</p><p>兰汉姆表示：“市场可能会更加关注最高法院的独立性，因为即将对美联储、移民和选举程序作出重要裁决。”</p><h2 id="ahnbt3oor"><strong>情景三：未作出决定</strong></h2><p>由于法院未提前说明何时会作出裁决，因此在 1 月 14 日关于关税案件未作出决定的可能性依然存在。</p><p>多佛指出，如果法院未作出决定，随之而来的不确定性可能造成最大的损害。“企业不知道今天的关税安排是持久的、临时的还是可退还的。”</p><p>他说：“市场可以接受坏消息；但他们对未定价的法律尾部风险感到困扰。裁决延迟的时间越长，企业就越像是必须同时为两种结果进行规划。”</p><p>文章来源：Businesstimes</p>

<p>美国最高法院即将裁定特朗普总统于 2025 年 4 月实施的关税是否合法，这可能会对全球市场产生重大影响。此案由小型企业和 12 个州发起，质疑这些关税是否在《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）下合法。分析师预测，法院可能会裁定这些关税违宪，这可能会使进口商的退款法律争斗变得复杂。对关税的裁定不利可能会挑战特朗普的经济政策，而有利的裁定则会提供明确性，但维持现状</p>

<p><img src="https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2026/86362397e93c6bb4eafe392bb559a747?x-oss-process=style/lg" alt="" original-src="https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2026/86362397e93c6bb4eafe392bb559a747"/></p>
<p>[SINGAPORE] The fate of US President Donald Trump’s tariff regime could face a major test on Wednesday (Jan 14) in the US Supreme Court.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>[新加坡] 美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的关税政策可能在周三（1 月 14 日）面临重大考验，届时美国最高法院将作出裁决。</p>
</div><p>Jan 14 was scheduled as an “opinion day”, marking the date as one the court could make a decision on whether Trump’s tariffs – first imposed in April 2025 on most global economies – were issued illegally.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>1 月 14 日被定为 “意见日”，标志着法院可能决定特朗普于 2025 年 4 月首次对大多数全球经济体实施的关税是否合法。</p>
</div><p>The session, scheduled to take place on Wednesday morning (Eastern Time), has left firms worldwide awaiting the decision – which is likely to send ripples through global markets regardless of the outcome.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此次会议定于周三上午（东部时间）举行，全球各地的公司都在等待这一决定，无论结果如何，都可能对全球市场产生影响。</p>
</div><p>What are the potential outcomes of the ruling, and how could they affect firms worldwide? <em>The Business Times</em> explains the background behind the case and the possible scenarios.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>裁决的潜在结果是什么？它将如何影响全球公司？《商业时报》解释了此案的背景和可能的情景。</p>
</div><h2><strong>What is the case about?</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>此案的内容是什么？</strong></h2>
</div><p>The challenges to the tariffs were first brought against Trump by a number of small businesses impacted by his tariffs – including five facing potential bankruptcy – in April, along with lawsuits filed by 12 US states.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>对关税的挑战最初是由一些受到特朗普关税影响的小企业提出的，其中包括五家面临破产的企业，时间是在 4 月，同时还有 12 个美国州提起了诉讼。</p>
</div><p>At issue are Trump’s Apr 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, which placed levies of between 10 and 50 per cent on most imports.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>争议的焦点是特朗普于 4 月 2 日实施的 “解放日” 关税，对大多数进口商品征收 10% 至 50% 的关税。</p>
</div><p>The lawsuits were originally filed in the lower courts including the US Court of International Trade and the District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower courts ruled in 2025 that the president had overstepped his constitutional authority. The import taxes remained in place as it faced appeals by the Trump administration, giving the administration time to make its case before the Supreme Court.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这些诉讼最初在包括美国国际贸易法院和哥伦比亚特区地方法院在内的下级法院提起。下级法院在 2025 年裁定总统超越了其宪法权力。由于特朗普政府提出上诉，进口税仍然有效，给政府提供了在最高法院提出其论点的时间。</p>
</div><p>These lawsuits were eventually consolidated and argued before the Supreme Court in November 2025, following a request by the Trump administration that the hearing be expedited given its “enormous importance”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这些诉讼最终在 2025 年 11 月合并并在最高法院进行辩论，特朗普政府请求加快审理，认为此案 “极其重要”。</p>
</div><p>During the arguments, conservative and liberal justices appeared to question whether the tariffs – which Trump imposed by invoking a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies – were constitutionally legal.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在辩论中，保守派和自由派法官似乎都质疑特朗普通过引用 1977 年旨在应对国家紧急情况的法律所实施的关税是否符合宪法。</p>
</div><p>Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of the US federal law, a US president is authorised to regulate international commerce in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the US – but the law contains no references to tariffs.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根据美国联邦法律《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA），美国总统被授权在面对对美国的 “异常和非凡威胁” 时调节国际贸易，但该法律并未提及关税。</p>
</div><p>Trump has also invoked the law to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the US as a national emergency.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>特朗普还引用该法律对中国、加拿大和墨西哥实施关税，称滥用止痛药芬太尼和非法毒品进入美国构成国家紧急情况。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2026/c8370b28ceeddaabc69a924715f124d9?x-oss-process=style/lg" alt="" original-src="https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2026/c8370b28ceeddaabc69a924715f124d9"/></p>
<h2><strong>Will the tariffs be ruled illegal?</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>关税会被裁定为非法吗？</strong></h2>
</div><p>Analysts that BT spoke to believed that the tariffs would be ruled unconstitutional, at least in part.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>BT 采访的分析师认为，关税至少在某种程度上会被裁定为违宪。</p>
</div><p>“It is clear that there is no basis for them, such as a national emergency that justifies the imposition of these tariffs under the IEEPA emergency powers,” said Dr Jayant Menon of the Iseas-Yusof Ishak Institute.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“显然没有任何依据，例如国家紧急情况可以根据 IEEPA 紧急权力来证明这些关税的实施，” Iseas-Yusof Ishak 研究所的 Jayant Menon 博士表示。</p>
</div><p>Stephen Dover, chief market strategist and head of the Franklin Templeton Institute, said that the Supreme Court could potentially invalidate Trump’s powers to broadly impose tariffs for national emergency reasons.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>富兰克林邓普顿投资公司的首席市场策略师 Stephen Dover 表示，最高法院可能会无效化特朗普在国家紧急情况下广泛实施关税的权力。</p>
</div><p>“Even if the court stops short of wiping everything out, it can still narrow the playbook by requiring a tighter link between the claimed emergency and the specific tariff remedy,” he said.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“即使法院没有完全推翻所有内容，它仍然可以通过要求声称的紧急情况与具体关税救济之间建立更紧密的联系来缩小操作范围，” 他说。</p>
</div><p>Meanwhile, prediction markets picked the courts to rule against the tariffs, with Polymarket traders assigning a 29 per cent chance for a decision in favour of Trump’s administration.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>与此同时，预测市场认为法院会裁定反对关税，Polymarket 交易者为特朗普政府的裁决赋予了 29% 的可能性。</p>
</div><h2><strong>Scenario 1: The tariffs are ruled illegal</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>情景 1：关税被裁定为非法</strong></h2>
</div><p>A ruling against Trump on tariffs would undercut the president’s signature economic policy and deliver his biggest legal defeat since returning to the White House.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果对特朗普的关税作出不利裁决，将削弱总统的标志性经济政策，并使他自重返白宫以来遭遇最大的法律失败。</p>
</div><p>It also would set the stage for potentially complicated legal fights over refunds of billions of dollars in tariffs paid so far by US importers, with more than 1,000 companies already lined up in court.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这也将为可能复杂的法律斗争奠定基础，涉及到美国进口商迄今为止支付的数十亿美元关税的退款，已有超过 1000 家公司在法庭上排队。</p>
</div><p>But analysts believe that such a ruling would far from spell an end to Trump’s tariff regime, which could look to avenues apart from IEEPA to impose tariffs.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但分析师认为，这样的裁决远未意味着特朗普的关税政策结束，他可能会寻找 IEEPA 以外的途径来实施关税。</p>
</div><p>“He will likely pursue other alternatives to impose these tariffs, since it is a critical part of his overall economic programme,” said Dr Menon.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“他可能会追求其他替代方案来实施这些关税，因为这是他整体经济计划的关键部分，” Menon 博士表示。</p>
</div><p>Dr Menon noted that the US president could continue to impose tariffs under sections 232 and 301 of the US Trade Expansion Act – which grant the president authority to modify imports on the basis of national security or retaliate against unfair trade practices.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Menon 博士指出，美国总统可以根据《美国贸易扩展法》第 232 和 301 条继续征收关税，这赋予总统根据国家安全的理由修改进口或对不公平贸易行为进行报复的权力。</p>
</div><p>Trump’s administration has already implemented sector-specific tariffs under Section 232 – which are not under scrutiny in the Supreme Court case – including duties on steel and aluminium, copper and solar panels from South-east Asian countries.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>特朗普政府已经根据第 232 条实施了特定行业的关税，这些关税在最高法院案件中并未受到审查，包括对来自东南亚国家的钢铁、铝、铜和太阳能电池板的关税。</p>
</div><p>However, ruling against the use of IEEPA would remove the administration’s ability to impose such duties with the same speed as before.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，裁定反对使用 IEEPA 将剥夺政府以与之前相同的速度实施这些关税的能力。</p>
</div><p>“It means the White House would have to use slower, more process-bound tools that require investigations and records,” Dover said.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“这意味着白宫将不得不使用更慢、更有程序约束的工具，这需要调查和记录，” Dover 说。</p>
</div><h2><strong>Scenario 2: The tariffs are ruled legal</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>情景 2：关税被裁定为合法</strong></h2>
</div><p>If the Supreme Court upholds the use of IEEPA to impose the tariffs, experts noted that this would still provide markets with clarity after months of uncertainty towards the tariff regime.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果最高法院维持使用 IEEPA 实施关税，专家指出，这仍将为市场提供在经历数月不确定性后对关税政策的清晰认识。</p>
</div><p>“If we get a decision Wednesday morning, businesses can start pricing a real tariff regime again – either a durable one if upheld, or a wind-down plan if struck (down),” said Dover.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“如果我们在周三上午得到裁决，企业可以开始重新定价真正的关税政策——如果维持，则是持久的；如果被推翻，则是逐步退出计划，” Dover 说。</p>
</div><p>This could offer crucial planning clarity for firms worldwide, including those pondering moving their supply chains into South-east Asia to sidestep tariffs on other nations.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这可能为全球公司提供关键的规划清晰度，包括那些考虑将供应链转移到东南亚以规避对其他国家的关税的公司。</p>
</div><p>“Firms deciding whether to allocate incremental capacity to Asean have been forced to treat tariffs as a moving target,” said Dover.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“决定是否将增量产能分配给东盟的公司被迫将关税视为一个不断变化的目标，” Dover 说。</p>
</div><p>However, such a ruling would effectively validate wider executive powers for the president in US trade policy, introducing new elements of uncertainty into global investment decisions.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，这样的裁决将有效地确认总统在美国贸易政策中的更广泛执行权，引入新的不确定性因素到全球投资决策中。</p>
</div><p>“This creates more reason for firms to diversify supply chains, hold extra inventory and delay some cross-border capex,” Dover noted.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“这使得企业更有理由多元化供应链，持有额外库存，并推迟一些跨境资本支出，” 多佛指出。</p>
</div><p>A ruling in favour of Trump’s regime could further embolden the administration to use tariffs as a key foreign policy tool, noted Michael Langham, emerging markets economist at Aberdeen Investments.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>阿伯丁投资的新兴市场经济学家迈克尔·兰汉姆指出，若法院裁决支持特朗普政府，可能进一步鼓励该政府将关税作为关键的外交政策工具。</p>
</div><p>This follows the president’s imposition of 25 percent tariffs on countries “doing business” with Iran earlier this week, in a move to back nationwide protests against its government.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这紧随总统本周早些时候对与伊朗 “做生意” 的国家征收 25% 关税的举措，以支持全国范围内对其政府的抗议活动。</p>
</div><p>“Markets may also become more concerned over the independence of the Supreme Court, with significant rulings due on the Federal Reserve, immigration and election processes,” said Langham.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>兰汉姆表示：“市场可能会更加关注最高法院的独立性，因为即将对美联储、移民和选举程序作出重要裁决。”</p>
</div><h2><strong>Scenario 3: No decision is made</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>情景三：未作出决定</strong></h2>
</div><p>As the court does not say in advance when it will hand down a decision, it remains a possibility that no decision is made regarding the tariffs case on Jan 14.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>由于法院未提前说明何时会作出裁决，因此在 1 月 14 日关于关税案件未作出决定的可能性依然存在。</p>
</div><p>Dover noted that the consequent uncertainty may deal the largest damage yet, if the court does not make a decision. “Firms don’t know whether today’s tariff schedule is durable, temporary or refundable.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>多佛指出，如果法院未作出决定，随之而来的不确定性可能造成最大的损害。“企业不知道今天的关税安排是持久的、临时的还是可退还的。”</p>
</div><p>“Markets can live with bad news; they struggle with unpriced legal tail risks,” he said. “The longer the ruling is delayed, the more firms behave as if they must plan for both outcomes at once.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>他说：“市场可以接受坏消息；但他们对未定价的法律尾部风险感到困扰。裁决延迟的时间越长，企业就越像是必须同时为两种结果进行规划。”</p>
</div><p>Article Source : Businesstimes</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>文章来源：Businesstimes</p>
</div>

Featured Analysis｜What’s at stake in the US Supreme Court’s tariff ruling today?


- 美国最高法院将于 1 月 14 日对特朗普关税政策进行裁决。  
- 判决将影响全球市场，可能引发复杂的法律斗争。  
- 预期裁决将决定关税合法性并影响企业的供应链决策。

今天美国最高法院的关税裁决中有什么利害关系？