上诉法院的一个法官小组在周四表达了对特朗普政府的试图证明基于国家紧急状态的全面关税是合理的。

　　随着唐纳德·特朗普总统任期的倒计时8月1日截止日期对于恢复互惠关税，美国联邦巡回上诉法院周四就特朗普的全面关税是否合法举行了听证会。

　　一群小企业和一个州联盟正在要求上诉法院宣布特朗普的大部分关税无效，认为特朗普援引很少使用的国际紧急经济权力法(IEEPA)制定一项法案超越了他的权力一连串关税四月。

　　周四听证会开始时，上诉法院小组的法官质疑特朗普为什么要依赖一部从未被用来证明关税合理的法律，称这部法律本身从未提及“关税”一词，并表示担心总统证明基于紧急情况的单边行动可能相当于“宪法的丧钟”。

　　“我的一个主要担忧是，IEEPA在任何地方都没有提到关税，”一名法官说。"在这里，IEEPA甚至没有提到关税，甚至没有提到它."

　　助理司法部长布雷特认为，特朗普是在应对源于贸易逆差和贩毒的“不寻常和非同寻常的威胁”。

　　“但是IEEPA很少被使用——已经超过50年了，”一位法官说。"这是IEEPA第一次被用于关税."

　　另一名法官担心特朗普的全面关税不会直接解决他试图解决的国家安全问题。

　　“如果总统说我们的军事准备有问题，他对咖啡征收20%的税，这似乎不一定[有效]，除非他把它联系起来，”法官说。

　　舒马特回应说，特朗普的关税可能不会直接解决具体的威胁，但正被用作更广泛的“谈判筹码”。提起此案的企业联盟代表律师尼尔·卡蒂亚尔(Neal Katyal)称这一论点是“伪造的”。

　　听证会正值特朗普的关键时刻，因为他急于完成贸易交易周五是中国自行设定的重启数十项互惠关税的最后期限。特朗普政府的律师认为，由于贸易谈判仍在进行，法院宣布关税无效将造成“外交政策灾难”。

　　特朗普周四早上在社交媒体平台上写道:“我所有努力拯救我们国家的伟大律师们，祝今天美国的大案好运。”。“如果我们的国家不能通过使用关税来保护自己，我们就会‘死亡’，没有生存或成功的机会。”

　　特朗普关税的法律权威在5月份陷入不确定性，当时纽约国际贸易法院裁定，总统无权单方面征收他的全球“解放日”关税，以及特朗普为打击芬太尼贩运而对中国、墨西哥和墨西哥征收的关税。

　　联邦上诉法院迅速留了下来国际贸易法院(Court of International Trade)的裁决尚未生效，而特朗普政府的上诉正在通过法院进行。

　　问题在于，特朗普是否有权在未经国会授权的情况下，通过《国际紧急经济权力法》(International Emergency Economic Powers Act)制定关税，该法案赋予总统在“不寻常和非同寻常的威胁”下征收关税的权力。

　　虽然特朗普政府辩称，关税打击了芬太尼贩运，并寻求解决该国的贸易失衡，但国际贸易法院不相信特朗普政府展示了“不寻常和非同寻常的威胁”，这些关税“应对了威胁”。

　　在法庭文件中，特朗普政府辩称，法院的决定“充满法律错误”，“如果生效，将严重损害美国。”他们引用该国的芬太尼危机和贸易不平衡导致的“对美国国家安全和经济的严重威胁”来证明关税的合理性。

　　“特朗普总统发现，美国爆炸式的贸易逆差，这种逆差对我们的经济和国家安全的影响，以及夺去数千美国人生命的芬太尼进口危机，构成了国家紧急状态，”司法部的律师辩称。

　　特朗普政府还认为，取消关税将“剥夺美国打击全球贸易体系系统性扭曲的有力工具，从而允许其他国家继续将美国出口商作为其不合理、歧视性、有时甚至是报复性贸易政策的人质。”

　　小企业团体和州检察长反驳了这些说法，认为《国际紧急经济权力法》没有赋予特朗普“无限的关税权力”，他未能证明“一种不寻常和非同寻常的威胁”。

　　他们写道，“总统对这一所谓权力的混乱断言，每天都在发生变化，并对资本市场和经济造成了严重破坏，这既说明了总统声称的权力的广度，也说明了在这一领域无限权力的危险。”

　　Appeals court judges voice skepticism about legal basis for Trump's sweeping tariffs

　　A panel of appeals court judges on Thursday voiced deep skepticism with theTrump administration'sattempt to justify sweeping tariffs based on a national emergency.

　　As the clock ticks down to President Donald Trump'sAug. 1 deadlinefor the resumption of reciprocal tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is hearing arguments Thursday over whether Trump's sweeping tariffs are lawful.

　　A group of small businesses and a coalition of states are asking the appeals court to invalidate the bulk of Trump's tariffs, arguing that Trump overstepped his power when he invoked the rarely used International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact aflurry of tariffsin April.

　　At the start of Thursday's hearing, judges on the appeals court panel questioned why Trump is relying on a law that has never been used to justify tariffs, saying that the law itself never mentions the word "tariffs" and voicing concern that the president justifying the unilateral action based on an emergency could amount to "the death knell of the Constitution."

　　"One of the major concerns I have is that IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs anywhere," one judge said. "Here IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs -- doesn't even mention it."

　　Assistant Attorney General Brett argued that Trump was responding to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" stemming from trade deficits and drug trafficking.

　　"But IEEPA is rarely used -- it's been over 50 years," a judge said. "This is the first time that IEEPA has been used for tariffs."

　　Another judge raised concerns that Trump's sweeping tariffs do not directly address the national security concerns he is trying to resolve.

　　"If the President says there's a problem with our military readiness and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily [work] unless he links it up," the judge said.

　　Shumate responded that Trump's tariffs might not directly address the specific threats, but are being used as a broader "bargaining chip." Neal Katyal, a lawyer representing the coalition of businesses who brought the case, called that argument "bogus."

　　The hearing comes at a critical time for Trump, as he rushes tocomplete trade dealsahead of a self-imposed Friday deadline for dozens of reciprocal tariffs to restart. Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued that a court invalidating the tariffs would create a "foreign policy disaster scenario" as trade negotiations remain ongoing.

　　"To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today," Trump wrote on his social media platform Thursday morning. "If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS."

　　The legal authority for Trump's tariffs was thrown into uncertainty in May when the New York-based Court of International Trade ruled that the president did not have the power to unilaterally impose his global "Liberation Day" tariffs, as well as the tariffs on China, Mexico, and Mexico that Trump imposed to combat fentanyl trafficking.

　　A federal appeals courtquickly stayedthe Court of International Trade's decision before it could take effect, while the Trump administration's appeal worked its way through the courts.

　　At issue is whether Trump had the authority to enact tariffs without authorization from Congress through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president the power to impose tariffs under an "unusual and extraordinary threat."

　　While the Trump administration has argued that the tariffs combat fentanyl trafficking and seek to settle the country's trade imbalances, the Court of International Trade was unconvinced that the Trump administration demonstrated an "unusual and extraordinary threat" and that those tariffs "deal with the threats."

　　In court filings, the Trump administration has argued that court's decision is "riddled with legal errors" and "would significantly harm the United States if it were to take effect." They have justified the tariffs by citing the country's fentanyl crisis and the "grave threats to the United States' national security and economy" stemming from trade imbalances.

　　"President Trump has found that America's exploding trade deficit, the implications of that deficit for our economy and national security, and a fentanyl importation crisis that has claimed thousands of American lives constitute national emergencies," lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued.

　　The Trump administration has also argued that invalidating the tariffs would "deprive the United States of a powerful tool for combating systemic distortions in the global trading system, thus allowing other nations to continue to hold American exporters hostage to their unreasonable, discriminatory, and sometimes retaliatory trade policies."

　　The group of small businesses and state attorneys general have pushed back against those claims, arguing that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give Trump "unlimited tariff authority" and that he has failed to prove "an unusual and extraordinary threat."

　　"The President's chaotic assertion of that purported authority, which changed by the day and wreaked havoc on capital markets and the economy, illustrates both the breadth of powers that the President claims and the danger of unlimited authority in this domain," they wrote.