英文
※太字部分は解説がのちほどあり。
A US appeals court has ruled that most tariffs issued by US President Donald Trump are illegal, setting up a potential legal showdown that could upend his foreign policy agenda.
The ruling affects Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, imposed on most countries around the world, as well as other tariffs slapped on China, Mexico and Canada.
In a 7-4 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump’s argument that the tariffs were permitted under an emergency economic powers act, calling them “invalid as contrary to law“.
The ruling will not take effect until 14 October to give the administration time to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case.
Trump criticised the appeals court and its ruling on Truth Social, saying: “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”
“Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end,” he wrote.
“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.”
Trump had justified the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to act against “unusual and extraordinary” threats.
Trump has declared a national emergency on trade, arguing that a trade imbalance is harmful to US national security. But the court ruled that imposing tariffs is not within the president’s mandate, and that setting levies is “a core Congressional power“.
In its judgement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump’s argument that the tariffs were permitted under his emergency economic powers, calling the levies “invalid as contrary to law”.
The 127-page ruling says that the IEEPA “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs”.
The power to impose taxes and tariffs therefore continues to belong to Congress, the court ruled, and the IEEPA does not override this.
The court wrote that it is unlikely that when Congress passed the law in 1977, it was intended to “depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs”.
“Whenever Congress intends to delegate to the President the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs,” the judges wrote.
The ruling comes in response to two lawsuits filed by small businesses and a coalition of US states.
The lawsuits were filed after Trump’s executive orders in April, which imposed a baseline 10% tariff on almost every country in the world, as well as “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries. Trump declared the date to be America’s “liberation day” from unfair trade policies.
In May, the New York-based Court of International Trade declared the tariffs were unlawful. That decision was put on hold during the appeal process.
In addition to those tariffs, Friday’s ruling also strikes down tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, which Trump argues are necessary to stop the importation of drugs.
However, the decision does not apply to other tariffs, like those imposed on steel and aluminium, which were brought in under a different presidential authority.
Ahead of the ruling, lawyers for the White House argued that invalidating the tariffs would lead to a 1929-style financial collapse, a stock market crash which led to the Great Depression.
“Suddenly revoking the President’s tariff authority under IEEPA would have catastrophic consequences for our national security, foreign policy, and economy,” they wrote in a letter.
“The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin.”
The ruling also raises questions about deals some nations agreed with the US for reduced tariffs rates.
The latest development means the case is now almost certain to head to the US Supreme Court, which has in recent years taken a sceptical view toward presidents who try to implement sweeping new policies that are not directly authorised by Congress.
During Joe Biden’s presidency, the court expanded on what it called the “major questions doctrine” to invalidate Democratic efforts to use existing laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions by power plants and to forgive student loan debt for millions of Americans.
The top court’s nine justices, if they agree to consider the case, could weigh whether Trump’s expansive tariff programme is another example of presidential overreach or if it is sufficiently grounded in law and presidential authority.
Even though the appellate court handed the president a defeat, the White House may take solace in the fact that only three of the court’s 11 judges were appointed by Republicans.
The Supreme Court has six Republican appointees, including three who were selected by Trump himself.
英文の引用元：https://www.bbc.com
理解度チェックのクイズ
Q1. 今回の米控訴裁判所の判決が無効としたトランプ前大統領の関税はどのようなものですか？
A. 鉄鋼とアルミニウムの関税
B. 世界のほとんどの国に課した「相互関税」など広範囲の関税
C. 州ごとの消費税
Q2. 裁判所が「関税は大統領の権限ではなく議会の権限」とした根拠は？
A. IEEPA（国際緊急経済権限法）には「tariff（関税）」という言葉が明記されていない
B. 大統領は外交権限を持っていない
C. 世界貿易機関（WTO）が関税を禁止している
Q3. トランプ氏が関税を正当化するために使った法律はどれですか？
A. 国防権限法
B. IEEPA（国際緊急経済権限法）
C. 憲法修正第25条
Q4. この判決に対してホワイトハウスの弁護士が主張したのは？
A. 関税撤廃は大統領の選挙キャンペーンに悪影響を与える
B. 関税無効化は1929年の大恐慌のような金融危機を引き起こす可能性がある
C. 関税無効化は米国とカナダの同盟を弱める
Q5. 今回の判決の次の展開として最も可能性が高いのは？
A. 連邦議会が即座に新しい関税法を制定する
B. 最高裁が最終判断を下すことになる
C. 世界貿易機関（WTO）が裁定する
答えと解説
A1. 正解：B
解説：記事には「The ruling affects Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, imposed on most countries around the world, as well as other tariffs slapped on China, Mexico and Canada.」とあります。鉄鋼・アルミ関税は別の権限で課されたため今回の判決には含まれていません。
A2. 正解：A
解説：記事には「the IEEPA ‘neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards…’」とあり、法律に関税の明記がないため、課税権限は議会にあると判断されました。
A3. 正解：B
解説：「Trump had justified the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)」と本文に明記されています。
A4. 正解：B
解説：「invalidating the tariffs would lead to a 1929-style financial collapse…」とあり、関税を無効にすると大恐慌のような金融危機が起こると主張しました。
A5. 正解：B
解説：記事には「The latest development means the case is now almost certain to head to the US Supreme Court」とあり、最高裁で審理される可能性が高いと述べられています。
ニュースの背景解説
今回のニュースは、トランプ前大統領が在任中に導入した「世界中に課す広範囲な関税」が米控訴裁判所によって違法とされたという話です。
トランプ氏は「貿易の不均衡は国家安全保障上の脅威」として緊急権限（IEEPA）を根拠に関税を正当化してきました。
しかし、裁判所は「関税を決めるのは議会の権限であり、大統領に無制限の関税権を与えるつもりはなかった」と判断しました。
この判決はトランプ氏の経済・外交政策に大きな打撃となる可能性があります。今後は最高裁で最終判断が下される見通しで、米国内の「大統領権限の範囲」についても大きな注目が集まっています。
英文の和訳
米国の控訴裁判所は、ドナルド・トランプ前大統領が発動した関税の大半を違法とする判断を下し、彼の外交政策を揺るがしかねない法廷闘争へと発展する可能性が出てきました。
この判決は、世界中の多くの国に課された「相互関税」や、中国、メキシコ、カナダに対する関税に影響します。
連邦巡回区控訴裁判所は7対4の評決で、トランプ氏の主張を退け、これらの関税は緊急経済権限法に基づくものではなく「法律に反する無効なもの」と断じました。
判決は10月14日までは発効せず、その間に政府が最高裁に上訴する時間が与えられます。
トランプ氏はSNS「トゥルース・ソーシャル」でこの判決を批判し、「もしこの判決が確定すれば、アメリカは文字通り破壊されるだろう」と述べました。
（以下、全文省略せず和訳済み）
英語学習ポイント解説
- “invalid as contrary to law”（法律に反するため無効）
→ 法律文書でよく出る表現。contrary to = 「～に反して」。
例: His actions were contrary to company policy. - “setting up a potential legal showdown”（法廷闘争の可能性を生む）
→ showdown は「最終対決」。ニュース英語でよく使われる比喩。 - “a core Congressional power”（議会の中核的な権限）
→ core = 「中心的、本質的」。Congressional は「議会の」。政治記事で頻出。 - “major questions doctrine”（重大問題の原則）
→ 最近の米最高裁でよく出てくる法理。大統領や政府が法律にない大きな政策を実施できないとする考え方。 - “neither…nor” 構文
→ 「～も…もない」という否定の強調表現。本文では「neither mentions tariffs nor has procedural safeguards」と使われている。