这是一篇发表于 2026 年 2 月 21 日《金融时报》（FT.com）的文章，由 Brooke Masters 撰写。以下是全文翻译：
https://www.ft.com/content/26c4bc44-35d0-4946-bc66-13777c9aef7e?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9
作者：Brooke Masters
阅读时长：4 分钟
日期：2026 年 2 月 21 日
免费解锁《白宫观察》简报
为您解读特朗普第二任期对华盛顿、商业及世界意味着什么。
当美国最高法院需要挺身而出履行职责时，六位大法官响应了这一号召。
😃😃在首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）的带领下，大法官们于周五裁定，总统唐纳德·特朗普不能无视法定和宪法限制，随意攫取权力。
😃😃在特朗普声称他可以基本凭个人喜好加征或取消关税这一前所未有的主张上，法律的“护栏”守住了底线。
这项裁决直接在特朗普的标志性议题上向其发起挑战，并使这些据总统称每年带来 9000 亿美元收入的税收陷入疑问——
😃😃经济学家表示，这一负担正沉重地落在美利坚的企业和消费者身上。
这是一次强有力且迟到的斥责。自去年 1 月重新掌权以来，这位总统一直无视他宣誓维护的宪法的直白措辞。
在本案中，特朗普声称 1977 年的一项名为《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）的法律赋予了他征收广泛进口关税的权力，尽管宪法明确规定将征税权保留给国会，且该法律中并未提及“关税”（tariffs）或“职责”（duties）等字眼。
该裁决将法院的三名自由派成员与罗伯茨，以及两名特朗普任命的大法官——艾米·康尼·巴雷特（Amy Coney Barrett）和尼尔·戈萨奇（Neil Gorsuch）团结在了一起。
😃😃事实证明，后两位大法官有时也愿意站出来反对他们的提拔者。
😃😃这也标志着在特朗普的第二个总统任期内，政府首次在经过充分辩论的职权挑战中败诉。
去年，最高法院对挑战特朗普政府行为的案件作出了 26 项裁决，其中除一项外，其余均属于“紧急处理清单”（emergency docket）。在这些案件中，法院处理的是在案件上诉过程中暂缓执行下级法院裁决的请求。
😃😃法院在其中的 21 次裁决中支持了政府，其中包括唯一一项经过充分辩论的案件。
😃😃但事实证明，即使是这届法院，对法律和宪法准则的冲击也只能容忍到一定程度。
😃😃去年 12 月，同样的六位大法官在紧急处理清单中裁定，特朗普无权不顾当地官员的反对，控制伊利诺伊州国民警卫队并将其派往芝加哥。
而在上个月的一场听证会上，多位大法官对特朗普试图解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克（Lisa Cook）的行为表示怀疑，尽管法院尚未对该案作出裁决。
在周五的关税案中，这一戏剧性的决定出现在一份既复杂又有限制的意见书中。尽管大法官们对于使用何种审查标准存在激烈的内部争论，但多数派对结果达成了一致，产生了一份多部分的意见书、一系列协同意见书以及两份反对意见书。
😃😃法院还拒绝就接下来的关键问题发表意见，即在这一非法体制下支付了关税的企业和消费者是否有权获得退款，以及何时获得。
😃😃但对于非法律人士来说，核心事实是：大法官们履行了宪法第三条赋予他们的职责，发挥了制衡其他两个政府分支的作用。
😃😃“我们不声称在经济或外交事务上有特殊的专业能力。我们只声称，正如我们必须做的那样，履行宪法第三条赋予我们的有限角色……在履行这一角色时，我们判定 IEEPA 并未授权总统征收关税，”罗伯茨写道。
大法官们履行了职责，为此美国应当感谢他们。
联系作者： brooke.masters@ft.com
您是否希望我为您详细解读《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）的历史背景，或是分析这项裁决对全球贸易的潜在后续影响？
😃😃😃😃
新功能：你的阅读体验迎来重大升级 — 全新工具栏、主题和字体·更新日志
FT.COM
www.ft.com
The Supreme Court has delivered an overdue rebuke to Donald Trump on tariffs
Brooke Masters
•
4 min read
Feb 21, 2026
Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
When the time came for the US Supreme Court to stand up and be counted, six of the justices answered the call.
Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, they ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump cannot ignore statutory and constitutional limits and simply grab power for himself. The guardrails have held, at least when it comes to Trump’s unprecedented claim that he could impose and lift tariffs basically on a whim.
The ruling directly challenges Trump on his signature issue and calls into question levies that the president claims are bringing in $900bn a year, a burden that economists say is falling heavily on American businesses and consumers.
It is a strong and overdue rebuke to a president who from the day he retook power last January has been ignoring the plain language of the constitution that he swore an oath to uphold.
Boost e‑commerce sales with automated email & SMS campaigns that grow customer lifetime value. Get full data control today.
Thordata · Sponsored
In this case, Trump claimed that a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gave him the power to impose sweeping import levies even though the constitution specifically reserves taxing powers for Congress and the law makes no reference to “tariffs” or “duties”.
The ruling brought together the court’s three-member liberal wing with Roberts and two Trump appointees, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, who have proved willing at times to stand up to their patron.
It also marks the first time in Trump’s second presidency that the administration has lost a fully briefed challenge to its authority.
Last year, the court issued 26 rulings on challenges to Trump administration actions, all but one of them on the emergency docket where the court handles requests to stay lower court decisions while cases work their way through the appeals process. It found for the administration 21 times, including in the only case that was fully briefed.
But it turns out that even this court will only accept so many assaults on legal and constitutional norms. In December, the same six justices ruled on the emergency docket that Trump lacked the authority to take control of the Illinois National Guard and send it into Chicago over the objection of local officials.
And at a hearing last month, a number of justices expressed scepticism about Trump’s attempt to dismiss US Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, although the court has not yet issued a ruling in that case.
In Friday’s tariff case, the dramatic decision came in an opinion that was simultaneously complicated and limited. The majority agreed on the results despite a bitter internal debate about what standard of review to use, leading to a multi-part opinion and a series of concurrences, as well as two dissents.
The court also declined to weigh in on the crucial question of what happens next and whether and when businesses and consumers who have paid tariffs under the illegal regime are entitled to refunds. But the crucial fact for non-lawyers is that the justices lived up to their role in article III of the constitution as a check on the other two branches of government.
“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III . . . Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote.
The justices did their job, and for that t
he US owes them thanks.
brooke.masters@ft.com
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。