唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）總統已通過緊急制裁法將新的貿易法領域推進了新的貿易法領土，以證明對加拿大和墨西哥進口的25％關稅是合理的，而中國商品的額外關稅額則是遏制芬太尼和非法移民進入美國的關稅。

貿易和法律專家表示，1977年《國際緊急經濟大國法》（IEPA）未經測試，以徵收進口關稅，特朗普的行動可能會

U.S. President Donald Trump has invoked an emergency sanctions law to justify punishing 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports and an extra 10% duty on Chinese goods to curb fentanyl and illegal immigration into the U.S.

美國總統唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）援引了一項緊急制裁法律，以證明對加拿大和墨西哥進口的25％關稅是合理的

Trump, in his second week of his second term in the White House, declared a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) on Saturday, citing the “extraordinary threat” from fentanyl and illegal immigration.

特朗普在他在白宮第二個任期的第二周中宣布，根據1977年《國際緊急經濟大國法》（IEEPA）的全國緊急情況，理由是芬太尼和非法移民的“非凡威脅”。

The law gives the president broad powers to impose economic and financial sanctions in times of crisis, including against Russia over its war in Ukraine.

該法律賦予了總統在危機時期實施經濟和金融制裁的廣泛權力，包括在烏克蘭戰爭中針對俄羅斯的戰爭。

Trump used IEEPA to impose the tariffs, as trade laws he used in his first four years for duties on steel, aluminum and Chinese goods would have required months-long investigations and public consultations.

特朗普利用IEEPA徵收關稅，因為他在頭四年對鋼鐵，鋁和中國商品的職責中使用的貿易法將需要長達數月的調查和公眾諮詢。

“The courts have historically upheld the president’s power to take emergency actions, especially when they are related to national security,” said Tim Brightbill, who co-chairs the international trade practice at the law firm Wiley Rein.

蒂姆·布萊特比爾（Tim Brightbill）說：“從歷史上看，法院歷史上維持了總統採取緊急行動的權力，尤其是在與國家安全有關的情況下。”

“The question is, does that include tariffs, since IEEPA has only been used for sanctions,” Brightbill said. He added that companies or industry groups would be likely to seek an injunction but may face an uphill battle blocking the tariffs.

Brightbill說：“問題是，這包括關稅，因為Ieepa僅用於製裁。”他補充說，公司或行業團體可能會尋求禁令，但可能會面臨艱苦的戰鬥，以阻止關稅。

“Judges are not likely to second guess a president on what constitutes an emergency,” said William Reinsch, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, adding that the “emergency is whatever he says it is.”

華盛頓戰略與國際研究中心的貿易專家威廉·雷因施（William Reinsch）說：“法官不太可能對總統的構成緊急情況進行猜測。”

The closest parallel to Trump’s action was the late president Richard Nixon’s use of IEEPA’s predecessor law, the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, to impose a 10% across-the-board U.S. tariff in 1971 to stem rising imports amid a balance-of-payments crisis after pulling the dollar off the gold standard.

與特朗普的行動最接近的是已故總統理查德·尼克松（Richard Nixon）對Ieepa的前身法律的使用，即1917年與《敵人法》（Enement Act）進行的交易，在1971年徵收10％的美國全面美國關稅，以阻止進口的進口量。付款危機從黃金標準中撤出。

Courts upheld Nixon’s action, but Jennifer Hillman, a trade law professor at Georgetown University and former World Trade Organization appellate judge, said Trump’s action may not fit the emergency.

法院維持尼克鬆的行動，但喬治敦大學貿易法學教授詹妮弗·希爾曼（Jennifer Hillman），前世界貿易組織上訴法官表示，特朗普的行動可能不符合緊急情況。

The Nixon ruling and reporting requirement language in the IEEPA statute suggest that there needs to be a causal connection between the emergency – fentanyl and migrants – and the remedy: universal tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China.

IEPA法規中的尼克松裁決和報告要求語言表明，緊急情況 - 芬太尼和移民之間需要有因果關係，以及補救措施：加拿大，墨西哥和中國的普遍關稅。

“At least for me, I don’t think there is such a connection in this case,” Hillman said. “The tariffs would not be applied only to fentanyl, so there is not a clear reason why tariffs on all goods are ‘necessary’ to deal with a problem of fentanyl or migrants.”

希爾曼說：“至少對我來說，我認為在這種情況下沒有這種聯繫。” “關稅不會僅適用於芬太尼，因此沒有明確的理由為什麼對所有商品的關稅均'必要'來處理芬太尼或移民問題。”

Nixon’s use had a much clearer connection between the level of imports and the value of the dollar, she added.

她補充說，尼克鬆的使用之間的使用水平和美元價值之間的聯繫更加清晰。

Trump threatened to use IEEPA in 2019 to back 5% tariffs on Mexican goods over border migration issues, but never declared an emergency after Mexico agreed to step up border security.

特朗普威脅要在2019年使用IEEPA來支持墨西哥商品對邊境移民問題的關稅，但在墨西哥同意加強邊境安全後從未宣布緊急情況。

Trump also invoked the National Emergencies Act to use federal funds to pay for construction of a wall on the southern border in his first term.

特朗普還援引《國家緊急法案》在他的第一任期內使用聯邦資金來支付南部邊界上一堵牆的費用。

If courts allow the use of IEEPA for tariffs to stand, Congress should reform IEEPA to require greater oversight, said Peter Harrell, a national security lawyer and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

國家安全律師兼新美國安全中心的高級研究員彼得·哈雷爾（Peter Harrell）表示，如果法院允許使用IEPA來徵收關稅，國會應改革IEPA，需要進行更大的監督。

“At the very least, however, courts should find that allowing Trump to wave his magic Sharpie to sign an IEEPA executive order imposing tariffs would upset the balance Congress has long sought to strike when it delegates its tariff authority to the president,” he said in a note, opens new tab on Friday.

他說：“但是，至少，法院應該發現，允許特朗普揮舞他的魔法沙皮人簽署一項IEPEA行政命令，徵收關稅將使國會長期以來一直試圖在將關稅授權授權給總統時罷工。”在註釋中，週五打開新標籤。

U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, last month introduced legislation, opens new tab to restrict IEEPA’s use for tariffs, arguing it was never designed or intended for such tariffs.

民主黨參議員蒂姆·凱恩（Tim Kaine）上個月提出了立法，並打開了新標籤，以限制Ieepa用於關稅的使用，並認為它從來沒有為這種關稅而設計或打算。

“Virginians want lower prices, not higher ones and the last thing we need are new, senseless taxes on imports from America’s three largest trading partners,” Kaine said on Saturday.

凱恩（Kaine）週六說：“弗吉尼亞人想要較低的價格，而不是更高的價格，我們需要的最後一件事是對美國三個最大貿易夥伴進口的新稅收稅。”