The United States executive branch is currently engaged in a series of legal disputes regarding the legality of broad-based import tariffs.

美國行政部門目前正陷入一系列關於廣泛進口關稅合法性的法律爭議中。

The administration's efforts to establish a global tariff framework have encountered significant judicial opposition. Initially, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of International Trade determined that a 10 per cent across-the-board levy, enacted via Section 122 of the Trade Act, was unlawful due to the absence of a balance of payments crisis. This latter ruling may necessitate the reimbursement of approximately $200 billion in collected revenues to importers, although the administration has petitioned the court to stay this decision pending an appeal.

政府建立全球關稅框架的努力遭遇了顯著的司法反對。起初，美國最高法院廢止了根據《國際緊急經濟權限法》實施的關稅。隨後，美國國際貿易法院認定，根據《貿易法》第 122 條所採取的 10% 全面徵稅，因缺乏國際收支危機而屬非法。後者裁決可能導致政府需向進口商退還約 2,000 億美元的徵收收入，儘管政府已請求法院在待上訴期間暫緩執行此決定。

In response to these setbacks, the executive branch has transitioned toward the utilization of Section 301 of the Trade Act. This mechanism requires rigorous investigations into discriminatory or unreasonable foreign trade practices. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has initiated probes into 16 major trading partners—including China, the European Union, and Norway—concerning structural excess manufacturing capacity. Concurrently, investigations into 60 additional economies, such as Australia, are being conducted under the pretext of inadequate enforcement of forced labor prohibitions. These combined actions effectively encompass over 99 per cent of U.S. imports.

針對這些挫折，行政部門已轉向利用《貿易法》第 301 條。該機制要求對歧視性或不合理的對外貿易行為進行嚴格調查。美國貿易代表署已對 16 個主要貿易夥伴（包括中國、歐盟和挪威）展開關於結構性產能過剩的調查。同時，亦以強制勞動禁令執行不足為由，對包括澳洲在內的另外 60 個經濟體進行調查。這些行動合計實際上涵蓋了超過 99% 的美國進口商品。

There exists a notable discrepancy between the administration's stated benchmarks and domestic data. The administration posits that capacity utilization below 80 per cent indicates structural excess; however, Federal Reserve data indicates that U.S. manufacturing utilization was 75.3 per cent in March. Furthermore, the targeting of Ireland's pharmaceutical sector—largely comprised of U.S.-owned entities—raises questions regarding the definition of 'burden' on U.S. commerce. Should these Section 301 tariffs be enacted, it is anticipated that they will face legal challenges concerning the constitutional division of tariff-setting authority between the presidency and Congress.

政府所述的基準與國內數據之間存在顯著差異。政府主張產能利用率低於 80% 即代表結構性過剩；然而，聯準會數據顯示，美國製造業 3 月的利用率為 75.3%。此外，針對愛爾蘭製藥產業（大部分為美國所有實體）的行動，引發了關於對美國商業造成「負擔」之定義的質疑。若這些 301 條關稅被實施，預計將在總統與國會之間關於關稅設定權的憲法分權問題上面臨法律挑戰。

The administration continues to seek legal avenues to maintain global tariffs despite two major judicial defeats.

儘管遭遇兩次重大司法挫敗，政府仍繼續尋求法律途徑以維持全球關稅。