导语 | Introduction
在全球贸易格局持续动荡的背景下，美国联邦上诉法院最近的一项判决，为跨境贸易合规和国际经济法领域带来了极大的震动。该案不仅涉及特朗普政府关税政策的合法性，还触及了行政权与立法权的宪法边界。对于跨境律师而言，该判决为未来政策走向、企业风险管理以及比较法研究提供了鲜活的素材。
Against the backdrop of global trade turbulence, a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals has sent shockwaves through the fields of cross-border trade compliance and international economic law. This case not only questions the legality of the Trump administration’s tariff policies but also touches upon the constitutional boundaries between executive and legislative powers. For cross-border practitioners, the decision provides valuable insights for anticipating policy shifts, managing corporate risks, and conducting comparative legal analysis.
一、案件背景与裁决概要🌻
1. Case Background & Summary
2025年8月29日，美国联邦巡回上诉法院以7比4多数意见裁定，特朗普援引《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）征收大范围全球关税，超越了总统的法定权限，违反了宪法的权力分工。法院认为，IEEPA主要赋予总统在应对“国家安全威胁”时采取冻结资产、限制交易等措施的权力，但并未授权其单方面设立税种或关税。
On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 ruling, held that Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs exceeded presidential authority and violated the constitutional separation of powers. The court explained that IEEPA primarily empowers the President to freeze assets and restrict transactions during national security emergencies, but does not grant authority to unilaterally create new taxes or tariffs.
该判决的意义在于，法院将“关税”严格区分为国会立法领域的固有权力，强调行政权不得以紧急授权为名，突破税收立法专属权。这不仅是对特朗普政府政策的否定，更是对宪法秩序的司法维护。
The significance of the ruling lies in its strict categorization of “tariffs” as a core legislative power vested in Congress, reaffirming that executive authority cannot bypass this mandate under the guise of emergency powers. The decision not only invalidates Trump’s policy but also reinforces constitutional order.
二、对比法分析：美国普通法与中国大陆法系🌻
2. Comparative Legal Perspective: U.S. vs. China’s Civil Law
1. 权力来源与划分
在美国，宪法明确规定征收关税属于国会职权。这体现了三权分立制度中“财政权”集中于立法机关的传统。
In the U.S., the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to impose tariffs, reflecting the tradition that “fiscal powers” are concentrated within the legislature under the separation of powers.
在中国，税收同样需由全国人大或其常委会制定法律授权，行政机关不得擅自设立税种。这与美国的逻辑一致，都是“税收法定”原则的体现。
In China, taxation likewise requires enactment by the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee, and administrative agencies cannot independently establish taxes. This parallels the U.S. “legality of taxation” principle.
2. 紧急权力的限度
美国IEEPA案例说明：即使在国家紧急状态下，总统权力也受限于法条明确授权，不得推演扩张。
The IEEPA case shows that even in emergencies, presidential powers are confined to statutory authorization and cannot be broadly expanded.
中国的紧急状态法律也规定，任何特殊措施必须有明确法律依据，否则即属越权。
Similarly, under Chinese law, emergency measures must rest on explicit legal provisions; otherwise, they constitute overreach.
3. 司法审查与救济
美国法院通过司法审查机制，有效约束行政滥权，确保合宪性。此案即为典型体现。
In the U.S., judicial review serves as an effective check on administrative excess, ensuring constitutional compliance. This case is a prime example.
中国大陆法系中，行政诉讼也允许个人或企业起诉行政越权行为，并由法院裁定撤销，虽力度与适用范围有所不同，但逻辑相似。
In China’s civil law system, administrative litigation allows individuals or enterprises to challenge ultra vires administrative actions, with courts empowered to annul such acts—though the scope and intensity differ, the logic is comparable.
4. 制度平衡与政治后果
在美国，该判决或将导致数百亿美元的退税责任，并迫使政府依赖其他法案（如《1974贸易法》或《1962年贸易扩展法》232条）重新施加关税。
In the U.S., the ruling may result in billions of dollars in refunds and force the government to rely on alternative statutes, such as the Trade Act of 1974 or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (1962), to reimpose tariffs.
在中国，此案例为未来完善紧急状态法律体系、明确行政与立法分界提供了启发。
In China, this case offers lessons for refining the emergency legal framework and clarifying boundaries between legislative and administrative authority.
三、跨境律师的实务启示🌻
3. Cross-Border Legal Practice Implications
1. 合规风险识别（Compliance Risk Identification）
企业在全球贸易布局中，应警惕行政措施缺乏立法依据的风险。这类政策可能在短期有效，但一旦司法推翻，将导致巨额追溯责任。
Companies engaged in global trade must beware of policies lacking statutory basis. Such measures may be effective in the short term but could create massive retroactive liabilities if invalidated by courts.
2. 多法域风险管理（Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Management）
律师在跨境服务中应同时考察目标国家的宪法框架与行政授权制度。例如，美国强调司法独立审查，中国强调行政受法律约束，两者都要求事先法律合规评估。
Cross-border practitioners must assess both the constitutional framework and administrative delegation rules of the target jurisdiction. The U.S. stresses judicial independence, while China emphasizes administrative compliance with statutory law—both require preemptive legal assessment.
3. 替代制度准备（Alternative Legal Strategies）
在美国，即便IEEPA关税被判非法，政府仍可依赖《1974贸易法》301条或《1962年贸易扩展法》232条来征收关税，虽范围受限，但合法性更强。企业应提前预判可能的政策替代路径。
In the U.S., even if IEEPA-based tariffs are void, the government can still resort to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 or Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Although narrower in scope, these options have firmer legal footing. Businesses should anticipate such fallback strategies.
4. 国际企业的实务建议（Practical Guidance for Multinationals）
• 在跨境投资合同中，可增加“关税合规条款”，明确若政策被司法推翻，双方如何分担退税或损失。
• 对于依赖美国进口的企业，应建立“政策应急基金”，以缓冲政策逆转带来的财务冲击。
• 建议跨国公司定期委托律师进行“政策合法性风险体检”。
• Contracts for cross-border investments should include “tariff compliance clauses” allocating refund or loss responsibilities if tariffs are overturned.
• Import-reliant firms should establish contingency funds to cushion against sudden policy reversals.
• Multinational corporations should commission regular “legal risk check-ups” to monitor the validity of trade measures.
结语 | Conclusion🌻
美国上诉法院驳回特朗普关税案，不仅是一起关乎国际贸易政策的案件，更是宪政框架下行政权边界的深刻警示。对于跨境律师和企业而言，这一判决的意义在于提醒：任何依赖紧急权力的政策工具，都可能面临司法否定的风险。无论在美国还是在中国，“法律授权的边界”始终是合规的底线。
The U.S. appeals court’s rejection of Trump’s tariffs is not merely a trade policy dispute—it is a constitutional warning about the limits of executive authority. For cross-border lawyers and businesses, the key takeaway is that any policy tool based on emergency powers remains vulnerable to judicial invalidation. Whether in the U.S. or China, the “boundaries of legal authorization” define the bottom line of compliance.
———————————
🌻如您正在规划企业出海、家族办公室或跨境架构搭建，欢迎留言或私信联系我们提供定制法律意见。🌻
------------------
🌻联系购买再版书籍：
美国大法官推荐---《出海指南：中国企业全球化法律实务》：
境内：88人民币
海外：50加元 🌻
———————————
🌻🌻“跨境法谈”团队涉外服务（有偿）：
1.跨境法律咨询
2.商务合同起草 （中英文）
3.海外公司注册（避税天堂/欧美/加拿大/迪拜）
4.推荐海外专业律师（刑事/商务/其它）
5.跨境追债和执行
6.国际商务项目推介
7.国际项目融资合作
8.公共关系合作
9.其它法律事务🌻🌻
联系方式：bigdavid1227@qq.com
----------------------------------