美国最高法院对特朗普关税合法性保持沉默，意味着什么？（观点，中英对照）

美国最高法院本周决定不就总统唐纳德·特朗普所实施的全球性关税是否合法作出裁决，这一结果来得悄无声息，显得漫不经心。没有判决意见，没有解释说明，也没有给出何时会作出裁决的任何时间表。从程序上看，这种做法或许并不罕见；但从实质上看，却绝非如此。对于像加拿大这样一个经济曾直接且反复遭受特朗普关税政策冲击的许多国家而言，最高法院的看似中立的沉默会带来实质性的后果。

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week not to rule on the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs landed quietly, almost casually. There was no judgment, no explanation, no indication of when a ruling might come. Procedurally, this may be unremarkable. Substantively, it is anything but. For countries like Canada, whose economy has been directly and repeatedly battered by Trump’s tariff regime, the Court’s silence is not neutral. It is consequential.

特朗普是援引一项1977年的紧急法案来实施这些关税的，而该法律原本是为应对特殊的国家危机而设，并非用于重塑全球贸易格局。下级法院已经对他是否越权提出质疑。在庭审辩论中，无论是保守派还是自由派的大法官，都公开对这些关税的法律基础表示怀疑。然而，最高法院最终选择了不作为。通过拒绝干预，最高法院事实上允许这些关税在法律挑战尚未解决之际继续施行。关税依然存在，不确定性依然存在，所造成的伤害也依然在持续。

Trump imposed the tariffs by invoking a 1977 emergency law intended for extraordinary national crises, not for reshaping global trade. Lower courts have already questioned whether he exceeded his authority. During oral arguments, justices from both conservative and liberal wings openly expressed skepticism about the legal foundation of the tariffs. Yet the Court declined to act. By declining to intervene, it has allowed the tariffs to remain in effect while legal challenges continue. The tariffs remain. The uncertainty remains. And so does the damage.

将这一事件与《纽约时报》近期的一项分析放在一起看，就似乎更容易找到其根源。《纽约时报》的分析凸显了特朗普重返白宫以来，其所任命的法官是如何进行司法裁决的。通过审视最高法院、联邦上诉法院以及地区法院的数百项裁决，《纽约时报》发现，特朗普任命的法官所作出的支持其立场之裁决的比例高于任何一位近代总统。  

This moment becomes harder to dismiss when viewed alongside a recent New York Times analysis of how judges appointed by Trump have ruled since his return to office. Reviewing hundreds of decisions across the Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, and district courts, the Times found that judges he appointed have sided with him at rates higher than those seen under any recent president.

就最高法院而言，九位大法官中有三位由特朗普任命。在涉及紧急程序和程序性问题的裁决中，法院往往允许其政策在法律挑战尚未结束之前继续生效，而在这些裁决所形成的多数立场中，特朗普任命的法官往往与之保持一致。

On the Supreme Court itself—where three of the nine justices were appointed by Trump—the Court’s emergency and procedural rulings have frequently allowed his policies to remain in force while legal challenges proceeded, with his appointees often aligning with the majorities behind those outcomes.

这并不意味着每一位法官都在恶意行事，也不意味着存在某种阴谋。然而，这确实暴露出一个令人不安的趋势：司法体系对行政权力不断扩张的主张，表现出越来越多的忍让，顺从与克制。当法院在强势的权力扩张面前反复选择退让，这种克制本身，便逐渐演变成了一种默许。

This does not mean every judge is acting in bad faith, nor does it suggest a conspiracy. It does, however, point to a judiciary that has grown markedly more deferential to expansive claims of executive power. When courts repeatedly choose restraint in the face of aggressive assertions of authority, that restraint becomes its own form of permission.

在宪政体系中，时机至关重要。被拖延的裁决并不等同于被否决的裁决，但最高法院选择不作出决定，客观上让特朗普的关税政策得以持续重塑市场、扰乱供应链，并引发贸易伙伴的反制。即便法院最终裁定这些关税违法，其带来的经济与外交后果也已无法轻易挽回。对制造商、出口商以及劳动者而言，不确定性本身，就是一种高昂的代价。

In constitutional systems, timing matters. While a ruling delayed is not the same as a ruling denied, by choosing not to decide, the Supreme Court has allowed Trump’s tariffs to continue reshaping markets, disrupting supply chains, and provoking retaliation from trading partners. Even if the Court eventually strikes the tariffs down, the economic and diplomatic consequences will not simply rewind. For manufacturers, exporters, and workers, uncertainty itself is a cost.

加拿大受美国最高法院不作为的影响尤为严峻而切身。加拿大经济与美国深度融合，其繁荣依赖于政策的可预见性、清晰而可执行的规则，以及对权力的有效制约。当贸易政策可以在所谓“紧急状态”之下被无限期地单方面推行，并因司法上的迟疑而得不到制衡，这一国际贸易制度的基础便会被逐步侵蚀。人治开始取代法治，稳定被动荡所取代。

For Canada, the implications are particularly acute. Our economy is deeply integrated with that of the United States, and our prosperity depends on predictability, rules, and enforceable limits on power. A system in which trade policy can be imposed unilaterally under a permanent state of “emergency,” and then insulated by judicial delay, undermines those foundations. It replaces law with discretion and stability with volatility.

这起关税案件并不仅仅关乎贸易本身，它检验的是司法制度在其最需要发挥作用时是否仍然有效，能司其职。法院的职责是制衡权力，而非一味地迁就权力。当最高法院在一宗挑战行政权力边界的案件中表现出犹豫，而这种犹豫又与司法体系整体趋于顺从的趋势相呼应时，其造成的后果早已跨越了美国边境。

The tariff case is not only about trade. It is a test of whether institutional guardrails still function when they are most needed. Courts are meant to check power, not accommodate it by default. When the Supreme Court hesitates in a case that goes to the heart of executive authority, and when that hesitation aligns with a broader pattern of judicial deference, the message resonates far beyond Washington.

对于在边境以北注视这一切的加拿大人而言，最高法院的沉默并非只是法律程序问题。它提醒人们，民主制度的力量，不仅体现在它会作出哪些决定上，也体现在它是否愿意在关键时刻及时作出决定。

For Canadians watching from the other side of the border, the Court’s silence is not merely procedural. It is a reminder that the strength of democratic institutions is measured not only by the decisions they make, but by the ones they are willing to make on time.