Name: 最高法院裁定川普關稅違法！ (Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs illegal)
Uploaded: 2026-02-20T17:19:31.000Z
Duration: 8 min 2 s

This is one of the most significant cases that the justices have decided in recent years here, the Supreme Court ruling that President Trump's use, these emergency tariffs that he has implemented are illegal.

這是司法官近年來在這裡做出的最重大的判決之一，最高法院裁定川普總統的這項緊急關稅措施是非法的。

It's the most significant economic case to reach the high court in years.

這是多年來提交給最高法院最重大的經濟案件。

Sweeping implications for the economy and, of course, for presidential power.

這對經濟，當然還有總統權力，都有廣泛的影響。

And at stake here are billions of dollars in revenue that have already been collected by the government.

這裡的利害關係是政府已經徵收了數十億美元的稅收。

Pamela Wolf, the other significance here is that this is the first time that the 6:3 conservative court has ruled against President Trump in one of these major cases that have gone before the court since he returned to power in January.

Pamela Wolf，另一項重要意義是，這是自川普總統一月掌權以來，6比3的保守派法院首次在一系列重大案件中做出對他不利的裁決。

Now, we are still going through this case, but this is something we have been waiting for.

現在，我們還在審理這個案子，但這是我們一直期待的。

The court said that it would take up this case on an expedited basis.

So they're deciding, even though it's a significant case now, because, of course, this has enormous implications to.

所以他們正在決定，即使這是一個重要的案件，因為當然，這也帶來了巨大的影響。

So as we go through this opinion now with our team, another outstanding question is what now happens to all that revenue that had been collected?

所以，當我們現在和我們的團隊一起審閱這份判決書時，另一個懸而未決的問題是，那些已經徵收的稅收現在會怎麼樣？

This is something, it really wasn't clear from the arguments what they would say about that if they're going to lay out a plan.

這件事，從辯論中真的不清楚他們會怎麼說，他們是否會提出一個計畫。

But this is an enormous decision and a rare loss for President Trump before this conservative court.

但這是一個重大的判決，也是這位保守派法院對川普總統罕見的一次挫敗。

This is, Paula, a major slap at the president of the United States, who has made a major effort over these many, many months to impose all of these tariffs.

這，Paula，是對美國總統的重大打擊，他花了許多許多個月努力要課徵這些關稅。

And just to look at some of the background I have here, over these many months, the administration has collected $150 billion billion dollars in these tariffs.

我這裡有一些背景資料，在這許多個月裡，行政部門已經徵收了 1500 億美元的關稅。

Do they have to refund that money to the firms, to the people who paid for those tariffs?

他們必須把錢退還給那些繳納關稅的公司或個人嗎？

That's one of the big questions that came up at arguments, and

這是在辯論中出現的一大問題，

it's something that we're looking through now in this opinion.

也是我們現在正在這份判決書中審閱的。

The top line is that these are illegal, that the president cannot rely on this 1977 emergency law to impose tariffs without authorization from Congress.

重點是這些關稅是非法的，總統不能依賴 1977 年的緊急法來課徵關稅，而未經國會授權。

Because this question is really about the extent of presidential power.

因為這個問題其實在於總統權力的範圍。

And we know in both his terms in office, President Trump has really worked at the edges of what has largely been recognized as executive authority.

而且我們知道，在他擔任總統的兩個任期內，川普總統一直在挑戰大家普遍認知的行政權力的邊緣。

But in these arguments back in November, they went on for two and a half hours, it was clear that the justices were skeptical that President Trump could rely on this vague federal law to impose global tariffs.

但在去年十一月的辯論中，他們進行了兩個半小時的辯論，很明顯，司法官們對於川普總統能否依賴這項模糊的聯邦法律來課徵全球關稅持懷疑態度。

Now, they did appear to likely be willing to decide that these were illegal.

現在，他們似乎很可能願意判定這些關稅是非法的。

But what is not clear we haven't gotten to this part of the opinion is what happens to all that revenue that has been collected by the government.

但我們還沒看到判決書的這部分，不清楚政府已經收取的那些稅收會怎麼處理。

And President Trump has said himself that this is, you know, this is a massive decision for him.

川普總統自己也說了，這對他來說是一個重大的決定。

So we're waiting for reaction, both from the Justice Department that argued this on his behalf and also from the White House.

所以我們正在等待司法部（代表他進行辯論）以及白宮的反應。

But we're going to keep going through this, Wolf, to try to see if the justices laid out any plan for what happens to that revenue.

但是我們會繼續深入研究，Wolf，試圖看看司法官們是否為這些稅收的處理方式提出任何計畫。

All right, Paula, standby, I know you're going to be reading all these opinions and everything.

好的，Paula，請稍候，我知道妳會仔細閱讀所有這些判決書和相關內容。

I want to bring in our senior legal analyst, Ellie Hoenig right now.

我現在想請我們的資深法律分析師 Ellie Hoenig 加入。

Ellie, as I said, this is a huge setback for the president of the United States.

Ellie，就像我說的，這對美國總統來說是個重大的挫敗。

And this has been a traditionally conservative Supreme Court, but

而且這一直是個傳統上保守的最高法院，但是

they ruled that all of these tariffs that Trump has imposed over these many months are illegal.

他們裁定川普這幾個月來施加的所有關稅都是非法的。

嗯，Wolf，這是個劃時代的裁決。

And the bottom line is that the tariffs Donald Trump announced back in April on Liberation Day are gone.

重點是唐納川普在四月解放日宣佈的關稅已經取消了。

They have been ruled illegal by this US Supreme Court.

美國最高法院已裁定這些關稅違法。

An interesting array of justices here in the majority ruling that the tariffs are illegal is Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, three conservatives who teamed up with the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and

在這個多數裁決中，認為關稅違法的有趣組合是首席大法官羅伯茨、戈薩奇大法官和艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官，這三位保守派與三位自由派大法官索托馬約爾、卡根和

Jackson, to rule these tariffs unconstitutional.

傑克森聯手，裁定這些關稅違憲。

The dissenters are Justices Thomas Alito and Kavanaugh.

持反對意見的是湯瑪斯、艾利托和卡瓦諾大法官。

And the basis for the ruling is Congress, not the president.

而判決的基礎是國會，不是總統。

Congress typically holds the tariff power.

Now, Congress passed this law back in 1977 called the International Economic Emergencies Act.

現在，國會在1977年通過了一項名為「國際經濟緊急狀態法」的法律。

And Donald Trump tried to use that law to say, well, I'm declaring an international economic emergency, therefore I'm imposing tariffs.

唐納川普試圖利用這項法律，說他正在宣佈國際經濟緊急狀態，是以他要實施關稅。

But the majority here said, no, that law does not authorize you to, to impose tariffs.

但多數意見認為，不行，這項法律並沒有授權你實施關稅。

And no, there is not a valid international economic emergency here.

而且，這裡不存在有效的國際經濟緊急狀態。

the end result is that Donald Trump's tariffs have been struck down by the U.S.

最終結果是唐納川普的關稅被美國

But really important point I want to make.

不過，我有一個非常重要的重點想說。

Donald Trump has said, various White House officials have said if he loses on this basis, he will try to re implement other tariffs through other laws, which he can try to do.

唐納川普說過，白宮的官員們也說過，如果他是以落敗，他會試圖透過其他法律重新實施關稅，這是他可以嘗試做的。

However, those other laws are much more restrictive.

然而，那些其他法律的限制就多得多了。

They would not allow him to apply the, the type of sweeping, massive, across the globe tariffs that he tried to impose here, but

它們不會讓他像在這裡試圖課徵的那種，全球性的、大規模的關稅。

Look, Donald Trump said these tariffs are the single most important thing he has done in his presidency.

聽著，唐納川普說這些關稅是他總統任內最重要的政績。

He said that, and now they've been struck down by the court.

他這麼說，而現在這些關稅被法院推翻了。

The administration has made clear that if the court strikes this down that they'll look at other tariff authorities to use.

行政部門已經表明，如果法院推翻這項裁決，他們會尋找其他關稅授權來使用。

But bottom line here, Ali, how big of a mess does this ruling create?

但總而言之，Ali，這個裁決會製造多大的麻煩？

Given the fact that the administration says it has already received $150 billion in revenue, largely paid for by American businesses?

考慮到行政部門說他們已經收到 1500 億美元的稅收，而這大部分是由美國企業支付的？

So it's hard to think of a case that has broader implications politically and legally and economically than this one.

所以很難想像有哪個案件在政治、法律和經濟上的影響會比這個案子更廣泛。

I know a lot of people are watching for this one.

我知道很多人都在關注這個案子。

This was a question as that came up during the oral argument.

這是在口頭辯論中提出的問題。

Amy Coney Barrett in particular asked the lawyers, well, what do we do with the 100/plus billion dollars that have already been paid by American importers, by American manufacturers?

尤其是艾咪·柯妮·巴瑞特問律師，那麼，對於已經由美國進口商、美國製造商支付的 1000 多億美元，我們要怎麼處理？

I know Paul is reading this very carefully, but that's a huge question.

我知道 Paul 正在非常仔細地閱讀，但這確實是個大問題。

Will there be some sort of mass refund program?

會不會有某種大規模的退款計畫？

Will the court rule that the tariffs are dead from here on out, but there are no repayments?

法院會裁定關稅從現在起失效，但沒有退款嗎？

We will let you know as soon as we get an answer to that one.

一旦有答案，我們會儘快讓你知道。

As you noted, Paula has been reading through the opinion.

正如你所說，Paula 正在閱讀判決書。

I want to go back to Paula Reid because we know that three conservatives sided with the liberals on the court.

我想回到 Paula Reid，因為我們知道有三位保守派大法官在法院裡與自由派站在一起。

And you have a quote from one of those conservatives, right, Paula?

而且你引用了其中一位保守派大法官的話，對吧，Paula？

Well, this is Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion where the court agreed 6 to 3 that President Trump's tariffs exceed his power under the law.

嗯，這是首席大法官 John Roberts，他寫了多數意見，法院以 6 比 3 的票數同意，川普總統的關稅超出了他在法律下的權力。

He wrote, quote, the president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope.

他寫道：「總統聲稱擁有單方面徵收無限金額、持續時間和範圍的關稅的特殊權力。」

In light of the breadth, history and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.

考量到該權力的廣度、歷史和憲法背景，他必須明確指出國會的授權才能行使。

And we knew that the chief justice would be a key vote after what we saw at arguments.

而且我們知道，在辯論中看到的情況後，首席大法官將是關鍵的一票。

現在，我們還在審閱這份文件。

So we're going through it very carefully to try to understand what, if anything, the court said about what happens to all that revenue the government has already collected.

所以我們正非常仔細地審閱，試圖瞭解法院對於政府已收取的稅收會如何處理，說了些什麼。

我知道這是目前大家關心的重大問題。

We are carefully going through this to see if they laid out a plan if this goes back to the lower courts.

我們正仔細審閱，看看法院是否有為案件發回更審時擬定計畫。

That's what we're working to figure out right now.

這就是我們目前正在努力釐清的。

我這邊有個快速的問題，Paula。

Do the tariffs immediately go away as of right now, or does it take a few days or at least maybe a few weeks for them to be removed?

關稅是從現在起立刻取消，還是需要幾天，或至少幾週的時間才能取消？

Well, they've been declared by the Supreme Court to be illegal.

嗯，最高法院已經宣告它們是非法的了。

So we're going through to see if they laid out some sort of plan.

所以我們正在審閱，看看他們是否有擬定某種計畫。

But as of right now, people should not have to pay a tariff today or tomorrow, one would think.

但照理說，從現在起，大家今天或明天都不應該再繳關稅了。

But we're looking to see because the logistics of this are so complicated to see if the justices weighted into that or if all of that is going to be something that's now going to be tossed down to lower courts now that the justices have ruled on the larger constitutional question here, the separation sort of a powers and who has the authority to do this?

但我們正在看，因為這其中的後勤作業非常複雜，想知道司法官們是否對此有所權衡，或者在司法官們就更大的憲法問題——權力劃分以及誰有權這樣做——做出裁決後，這一切是否都會被丟給下級法院處理？

Because while this has enormous economic implications, really this was a question about the extent of executive power.

因為雖然這有重大的經濟影響，但這其實是關於行政權力範圍的問題。