2026-08-03T19:19:29.382Z / reuters.com
2026年3月10日摄于美国加利福尼亚州长滩市洛杉矶港码头的堆叠集装箱。路透社/卡罗琳·布雷曼/档案照片 购买授权，打开新标签页
- 内容摘要
- 各州辩称，特朗普的全面关税举措不符合法律要求
- 此前已有两起小企业诉讼对最新关税提出质疑
- 各州与小企业曾成功挑战特朗普此前的关税政策
纽约8月3日路透电 —— 由25个民主党领导的美国州政府于周一起诉唐纳德·特朗普总统政府，辩称特朗普针对60个贸易伙伴的最新一轮关税，与其此前大规模关税政策一样，超出了他对进口商品征税的法定权限。
各州此次在纽约美国国际贸易法院提起的诉讼，紧随美国小企业此前的质疑行动之后——这些小企业在上月关税生效当日就提起诉讼要求阻止关税实施。各州与小企业曾成功挑战特朗普在其第二任期内实施的多项全球关税，但尽管遭遇一系列法律挫败，特朗普仍持续推行新的关税政策。
路透社每日简报通讯为您提供开启一天所需的全部新闻。点击此处订阅。
特朗普政府于7月24日对包括欧盟在内的60个贸易伙伴加征10%和12.5%的新关税，理由是这些贸易伙伴未采取足够措施阻止使用强迫劳动生产的商品出口。此次关税生效之际，此前一项10%的全球关税刚刚到期。
此次起诉的州包括俄勒冈州和纽约州，这些州均由民主党籍检察长或州长执政。
“尽管在每一个诉讼环节都败诉，特朗普仍试图再次给工薪家庭和俄勒冈本土企业制造更多混乱，”俄勒冈州检察长丹·雷菲尔德在一份声明中说道。
白宫未立即回应置评请求。
特朗普已将关税作为其外交政策的核心支柱，即便在美国最高法院遭遇惨败后亦是如此。美国最高法院于2月20日裁定特朗普大部分范围最广的关税政策违宪，认定《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）并未授权总统单方面对贸易伙伴加征关税。
特朗普对此裁决的回应是升级贸易战，称最高法院大法官不忠，并依据另一项不同的法律权限推出新的10%临时关税——该权限与《国际紧急经济权力法》一样，此前从未有总统用来征收关税。美国国际贸易法院也裁定这些关税非法，但在特朗普政府上诉期间，这些关税仍持续生效。
最新一轮全球关税是依据1974年《贸易法》第301条实施的，该条款旨在打击其他国家的不公平或歧视性经济行为。7月实施的关税影响了超过99%的美国进口商品。
与《国际紧急经济权力法》或临时全球关税权限不同，《贸易法》第301条曾被往届总统使用过。但各州与小企业在诉讼中称，《贸易法》第301条关税历来都是针对特定国家和行业的，而特朗普的全面举措并无历史先例可循。
与此前两起由小企业提起的关税诉讼一样，各州的诉状还辩称，新关税以“强迫劳动”为借口，重新实施了此前已被法院裁定为非法的关税。他们表示，对进口商品全面征税根本无法解决全球范围内强迫劳动的真正问题。
迪特里希·克瑙特 报道；亚历克西亚·加拉姆法尔维与迪帕·巴宾顿 编辑
Democratic US states sue to challenge Trump’s latest tariffs
2026-08-03T19:19:29.382Z / reuters.com
Shipping containers are stacked at a terminal at the port of Los Angeles in Long Beach, California, U.S., March 10, 2026. REUTERS/Caroline Brehman/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Summary
- States argue that Trump’s broad-brush tariff approach doesn’t square with legal requirements
- Two small business lawsuits previously challenged the latest tariffs
- States and small businesses successfully challenged Trump’s previous tariff regime
NEW YORK, Aug 3 (Reuters) – A group of 25 Democratic-led U.S. states sued President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday, arguing that the president’s latest round of tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners, like most of his earlier sweeping tariffs, exceeds his legal authority to tax imports.
The states’ lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York follows previous challenges by small U.S. businesses, which sued to block the tariffs on the day they went into effect last month. States and small businesses have successfully challenged previous global tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term, but the president has continued to pursue new tariffs despite a series of legal setbacks.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
The Trump administration on July 24 imposed new tariffs of 10% and 12.5% on 60 trading partners, including the European Union, over allegations that they were not doing enough to stop the export of goods produced with forced labor. The tariffs went into effect just as a previous 10% global tariff expired.
The states that sued, including Oregon and New York, all have Democratic attorneys general or governors.
“Despite losing every step of the way, Trump is trying yet again to inflict more chaos on working families and homegrown Oregon businesses,” Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign policy, even after a stinging defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against most of Trump’s widest-ranging tariffs on February 20, finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose tariffs on trading partners.
Trump responded to that ruling by escalating his trade war, calling Supreme Court justices disloyal and issuing new temporary 10% tariffs under a different legal authority that, like IEEPA, no president had previously used to impose tariffs. Those tariffs were also ruled illegal by the U.S. Court of International Trade, but they remained in effect while the Trump administration appealed.
The latest round of global tariffs was imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which is meant to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices by other nations. The tariffs imposed in July affect over 99% of U.S. imports.
Unlike IEEPA or the temporary global tariff authority, Section 301 has been used by past presidents. But the states and small businesses said in their lawsuits that Section 301 tariffs have historically been targeted to address specific nations and industries, and Trump’s broad-brush approach has no historical precedent.
The states’ complaint, like two previous lawsuits filed by small businesses over the tariffs, also argued that the new tariffs used “forced labor” as a pretext to re-impose the tariffs that had already been ruled illegal in court. They said that a sweeping tax on imports would do nothing to address the real problems of forced labor around the world.
Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Deepa Babington
发表回复