2026年5月8日 / 美国东部时间下午3:09 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻（CBS News）
作者：梅根·塞鲁洛 记者，MoneyWatch频道
梅根·塞鲁洛是驻纽约的CBS MoneyWatch记者，报道小企业、职场、医疗保健、消费者支出和个人理财话题。她经常出现在CBS News 24/7频道讨论其报道内容。
阅读完整个人简介
法律和贸易专家表示，美国一家贸易法院对特朗普政府关税的裁决可能进一步限制白宫征收进口税的能力。
国际贸易法院（CIT）支持了24个州和企业提起的诉讼，这些诉讼质疑特朗普总统2月根据1974年《贸易法》第122条征收的10%全球关税的合法性。在由三名法官组成的陪审团的裁决中，法院认定临时关税“非法”且对企业有害。
此次特朗普贸易政策受挫之前，最高法院2月的一项裁决推翻了美国去年根据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）征收的关税。
根据该裁决，美国政府估计需要向进口商退还1750亿美元关税及利息。美国海关和边境保护局随后推出了一个门户网站，进口商可在此提交退税申请。
白宫发言人库什·德赛为特朗普使用关税的行为辩护。“特朗普总统合法地使用了国会授予他的关税权限，以应对我们的国际收支危机，”德赛在给CBS News的一份声明中表示。“特朗普政府正在审查法律选项，并对最终胜诉充满信心。”
特朗普政府官员曾表示，关税是确保与美国经济伙伴建立公平贸易关系、捍卫美国关键产业和增加联邦收入的重要工具。
以下是关于此次推翻特朗普政府关税的最新法院裁决需要了解的信息。
特朗普的10%全球关税现状如何？
安永（Ernst & Young）贸易政策专家布莱克·哈登解释称，国际贸易法院的裁决仅适用于一小部分原告——两家企业和华盛顿州——他们就第122条关税起诉特朗普政府。
根据资本经济公司（Capital Economics）的数据，该裁决使美国进口商品的平均实际关税税率维持在7.2%。
投资咨询公司北美首席经济学家斯蒂芬·布朗在一份研究报告中表示：“鉴于国际贸易法院的裁决范围狭窄，且第122条关税无论如何都将于7月底到期，这一切对美国关税税率没有直接影响。”
这对企业意味着什么？
法院裁决的范围狭窄意味着大多数美国企业仍需为大多数进口商品缴纳10%的关税。
“他们必须继续按原计划行事。如果我现在是一家企业，实际上今天和昨天相比没有任何变化，”哈登说，她预计特朗普政府“会非常迅速地”对这一裁决提起上诉。
福克·罗斯柴尔德律师事务所的贸易律师莉兹贝斯·莱文森表示，由于该裁决并未全面推翻第122条关税，更多企业可能提起诉讼以避免缴纳关税，并有可能寻求退税。
“他们可以站出来，根据他们缴纳的关税金额，如果值得的话，尝试追回他们的资金，”她告诉CBS News。
哈登建议美国进口商仍应记录他们缴纳的所有第122条关税，以防最终有权获得关税退款。“他们希望做好准备，以防最终能够申请退税。”
特朗普接下来可能会怎么做？
1974年《贸易法》第122条仅允许总统在150天内征收10%的临时关税。哈登表示，这项贸易措施原本是权宜之计，而非白宫非法的《国际紧急经济权力法》关税的永久替代品。
特朗普政府于3月宣布根据1974年《贸易法》第301条对外国的贸易做法展开调查，该条款允许美国贸易代表办公室单方面对从事不公平贸易做法的国家采取报复措施。
该法律还要求联邦政府在征收关税和其他贸易限制之前，必须先对一国的贸易做法进行调查。
“这一裁决强化了，第301条是他们最有可能依赖的工具，也是他们最有可能建立持久关税制度的工具，”哈登说。“我认为，第301条将是他们未来的关键策略。”
不过，贸易法院的最新裁决可能会为对第301条关税的法律挑战打开大门。布朗在其报告中表示：“这一决定再次凸显了，当政府试图根据其针对60个国家的最新第301条调查实施关税时，可能会面临司法抵制。……这增加了特朗普政府最终无法成功弥补因《国际紧急经济权力法》关税损失的收入的风险。”
编辑：阿兰·谢尔特
What the Trump administration’s latest tariff blow means for businesses
May 8, 2026 / 3:09 PM EDT / CBS News
By Megan Cerullo Reporter, MoneyWatch
Megan Cerullo is a New York-based reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering small business, workplace, health care, consumer spending and personal finance topics. She regularly appears on CBS News 24/7 to discuss her reporting.
Read Full Bio
A U.S. trade court’s ruling against a Trump administration tariff could further constrain the White House’s ability to impose import levies, according to legal and trade experts.
The Court of International Trade (CIT)sided with 24 states and businesses thatfiled a lawsuit challenging the legality of a 10% global tariff imposed by President Trump in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. In a ruling by the three-judge panel, the court found that the temporary tariffs were “unlawful” and harmful to businesses.
The blow to Mr. Trump’s trade policies follows a February Supreme Court ruling that struck down U.S. tariffs imposed last year under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
The U.S. government owes importers an estimated $175 billion in tariff refunds, plus interest, because of the ruling. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has since launched a portal where importers can submit refund claims.
White House spokesman Kush Desai defended Mr. Trump’s use of tariffs. “President Trump has lawfully used the tariff authorities granted to him by Congress to address our balance of payments crisis,” Desai said in a statement to CBS News. “The Trump administration is reviewing legal options and maintains confidence in ultimately prevailing.”
Trump administration officials have said tariffs are an important tool for ensuring fair trade relations with U.S. economic partners, defending critical U.S. industries and raising federal revenue.
Here’s what to know about the latest court ruling rolling back the Trump administration’s tariffs.
What’s the status of Trump’s 10% global tariff?
The CIT ruling applies to a narrow subset of the plaintiffs — two businesses and the state of Washington — that sued the Trump administration over the Sec. 122 tariffs, Ernst & Young trade policy expert Blake Harden explained.
The ruling leaves the average effective U.S. tariff rate on imports at 7.2%, according to Capital Economics.
“Given the narrow nature of the CIT’s ruling and the fact that Section 122 tariffs are due to expire at the end of July anyway, none of this has any immediate implication for the U.S. tariff rate,” Stephen Brown, chief North America economist at the investment advisory firm, said in a research note.
What does it mean for businesses?
The narrow scope of the court’s ruling means most U.S. businesses still owe the 10% tariff on most imported goods.
“They have to keep doing what they’ve been doing. If I am a business today, for practical purposes, nothing changes today compared to yesterday,” Harden said, noting that she expects the Trump administration to appeal the ruling “very swiftly.”
Fox Rothschild trade attorney Lizbeth Levinson said that, because the ruling does not universally strike down the Section 122 tariff, more businesses could sue to avoid paying the tariffs and potentially seek refunds.
“They could come forward, depending on how much they’ve paid in duties, if it’s economical for them to try to get their money back,” she told CBS News.
U.S. importers should still track any Section 122 duties they pay in case they are eventually entitled to tariff refunds, Harden advised. “They want to be prepared in case they do wind up with the ability to file for refunds.”
What could Trump do next?
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 only allows the president to impose a temporary 10% duty for 150 days. Harden said the trade measure was intended as a stopgap rather than a permanent substitute for the White House’s illegal IEEPA duties.
The Trump administration in March announced investigations into foreign nations’ trade practices under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to unilaterally retaliate against countries engaging in unfair trade practices.
The law also requires the federal government to first investigate a country’s trade practices before it can impose tariffs and other trade restrictions.
“This decision reinforces that 301 is the tool they are most likely to rely upon and have the best chance at a durable tariff regime,” Harden said. “I think 301 is the name of the game for them moving forward.”
Still, the trade court’s latest ruling could open the door to legal challenges to Section 301 tariffs. Said Brown in his report: The decision “once again highlights the judicial pushback that the administration is likely to face when it tries to follow through with tariffs under its more recent Section 301 investigations against 60 countries. … That raises the risk that the Trump administration will eventually fail in its efforts to fully replace the lost revenue from IEEPA tariffs.”
Edited by Alain Sherter