《特朗普紧急关税案》:价值投资与跨境供应链的制度性拐点

我爱免费

作者：微信文章
英文版在中文版之后｜The English version follows the Chinese version

美国最高法院本周开庭，全球贸易与资本体系进入司法压力测试

本周三（11 月 5 日，美国东部时间），美国最高法院将正式开庭审理“特朗普紧急关税案”。这场围绕总统能否以“国家紧急状态”为由绕过国会、直接征收普遍性进口关税的诉讼，已被视为美国近三十年来最重要的经济宪政案件之一。其裁决不仅决定 10%—50% 的关税能否继续执行，更决定美国贸易权力是否从立法端转移至行政端。全球供应链布局、跨境资本定价体系、美股价值投资逻辑，都将在这一判决中受到重新塑形。
一、法律争议核心：IEEPA 是否被滥用？





案件焦点集中在《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）是否赋予总统重写全国关税体系的权限。提起诉讼的美国企业认为，IEEPA 本质为制裁法，其授权范围在于冻结敌对国家或机构的资产、限制敏感金融交易，而非赋予总统制定税收政策的权力。关税属于国会的财政与商业立法权限，不可通过行政命令取而代之。贸易逆差也不构成“突发且异常的国家紧急状态”，因此无法满足启动紧急权力的法律门槛。

特朗普法律团队则辩称，IEEPA 文本已授权总统在国家安全框架下“广泛干预对外经济关系”，关税理应属于合法工具。此外，法院历来避免干预国家安全与外交事务，应当尊重行政部门的政策判断，否则将限制美国政府应对经济安全威胁的能力。
二、裁决意义不止关税，而是美国权力结构的未来





本案之所以具有制度性意义，在于最高法院将首次明确界定：总统是否可在无国会授权下，以紧急行政令“重写贸易体系”。如果法院裁定总统无此权力，美国贸易政策将重新回到国会主导的轨道，全球资本与企业得以恢复“制度可预测性”，规则型全球化将继续维持运转。

然而，即便最高法院最终裁定紧急关税机制违法，也并不意味着关税风险将自动消失。特朗普政府已多次暗示，若 IEEPA 被司法限制，将考虑转向其他法律框架，例如《贸易法 301 条》《国家安全法 232 条》，或直接以“行政备忘录＋个案调查”方式重新启动针对特定国家或行业的差别性关税。因此，企业与投资者即使在“关税被推翻”的情境下，也不能简单假设美国贸易政策将回到完全可预测状态，风险只会从“全面关税”转变为“定向关税＋组合政策”。

换言之，本案的裁决将决定总统是否拥有“一步到位的普遍性征税权”，但无论结果如何，美国贸易政策工具箱仍然存在其他可被动用的选项。如果裁决对原告有利，市场迎来的可能不是“自由贸易回归”，而是“关税战术化、工具多元化”。
三、对价值投资者：估值体系进入“政策敏感时代”





本案迫使价值投资框架重新定义“内在价值”。传统价值投资以现金流、负债、利润率与行业均值为主要参考假设，而这些假设默认“成本结构稳定、政策变量可忽略”。当关税成为可被行政权力触发的外生成本时，估值逻辑本身被迫重写：低市盈率与高分红不再意味着“安全边际”，若企业无法转嫁成本或调整生产结构，即便账面便宜也可能成为“政策陷阱股”。

未来，美股价值板块将出现明显分化：
以国内生产、区域定价权与稳定资产回报率为特征的铁路、公用事业、保险、油气输送企业，可能在不确定环境下获得重新定价；拥有全球品牌力与供应链调度能力的跨国龙头仍具韧性；而利润率薄弱、生产外包型、库存周期长、依赖进口成本的 OEM 与低价零售企业，将在资本市场中长期被施加“制度折价”。

价值投资的判断标准，不但需要“买得便宜”而且需要“买得抗风险”。
四、对跨境企业：供应链策略从“最低成本”转向“最低风险暴露”





对亚洲出口企业与跨国供应链管理者而言，本案改变的并非税率，而是商业模式能否继续预设政策稳定。在“紧急关税权”若被批准的情形下，供应链将不再以“单一生产国＋单一报关口岸”为最优配置模型，而是进入“产地多元化、报关地分离、合同税责重分配”的结构性重组阶段。FOB、CIF、DDP 等传统贸易条款将不得不重新谈判，货权、税负、库存风险都将进入制度化重新分配。

即便关税被推翻，美国仍可在 301、232、反倾销、国家安全审查等渠道继续实施选择性贸易壁垒，因此企业并不能假设风险消失，而只能通过供应链结构设计降低风险集中度。未来的产业竞争优势，将不再单纯取决于制造效率，而取决于制度适应能力：谁能在法律框架变化中保持运营稳定，谁才能真正控制供应链的长期利润。
结语





最高法院正在审理的，并不是一项关税数字，而是一项制度方向：全球贸易与资本体系是否仍由法律规则稳定约束，还是由行政权力即时定义。判决结果也许要数月后才能公布，但市场已经提前开始重新定价，企业已开始重新布线供应链，而价值投资逻辑也正在经历一次结构性再校准。

这场诉讼不是关税纷争，而是全球化是否进入“制度碎片化时代” 的一次司法分水岭。

免责声明：本文为信息性分析，不构成法律或投资建议。政策与市场变量存在不确定性，读者应根据自身情况独立判断或咨询专业顾问。

---

“The Trump Emergency Tariff Case”: A Structural Turning Point for Value Investing and Global Supply Chains




Dr. Shi,  2 November 2025





— As the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case this week, global commerce enters a constitutional stress test

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this Wednesday, November 5, in what may become the most consequential trade-related constitutional ruling in a generation. At stake is whether a U.S. president may unilaterally impose sweeping import tariffs under a self-declared “national emergency,” bypassing Congress entirely. The ruling will not only determine the fate of the 10–50% tariffs currently in force, but also redefine the legal architecture of U.S. trade authority — with direct implications for global supply chains, capital allocation, and valuation frameworks in U.S. equities.
The legal dispute: Is IEEPA being stretched beyond its purpose?





Business plaintiffs argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was never intended to serve as a taxation statute. Designed as a sanctions tool to freeze assets and block hostile transactions, it does not grant the president the authority to rewrite the national tariff schedule. Tariff power belongs to Congress under Article I of the Constitution, and a trade deficit does not constitute the kind of “sudden and extraordinary threat” required to invoke emergency authority.

The Trump legal team maintains that IEEPA’s language grants the president broad discretion over foreign economic relations under national-security conditions, and that tariffs fall within that scope. They further argue that the judiciary has historically deferred to the executive branch in matters of foreign policy and national security, and that limiting IEEPA could weaken the legal basis of U.S. sanctions regimes.
Even a plaintiff victory will not eliminate tariff risk


Even if the Supreme Court ultimately strikes down the emergency tariff authority, it would not automatically restore a predictable trade environment. The Trump administration has already signaled that it could pivot to alternative legal frameworks — including Section 301 of the Trade Act, Section 232 national-security tariffs, or targeted executive actions — to re-impose selective duties on specific countries or sectors. In that scenario, the legal basis would change, but the policy effect could partially remain.

In other words, a ruling against universal emergency tariffs would curtail the president’s ability to impose all-goods tariffs in a single step, but it would not eliminate the risk of politically driven tariff actions. The shift would be from “universal tariffs” to “selective, tool-based tariffs.”
Implications for value investors


The case forces “intrinsic value” to be recalibrated through the lens of policy risk. Stable cash flows and low valuation multiples are no longer sufficient markers of defensiveness if cost structures can be altered by executive action. The premium will instead flow to companies with pricing power, domestic cost bases, or multi-jurisdictional supply flexibility — while low-margin, import-dependent firms may carry a permanent policy discount. Value investing is shifting from “buy cheap” to “buy resilient.”
Implications for cross-border businesses


For Asian exporters and multinational manufacturers, the question is no longer whether tariffs will stay, but whether their business models can withstand recurring legal and political intervention. Supply-chain architecture will move away from single-country concentration toward risk-segmented structures in which production, customs declaration, invoicing, and final sale may occur in different jurisdictions by design rather than accident.

Even if the emergency tariff mechanism is struck down, the era in which U.S. trade policy could be assumed stable is over. The next phase of competitive advantage will belong not to the lowest-cost producer, but to the enterprise most capable of operating under legal volatility with operational continuity.
Conclusion


The Court is not merely judging a tariff policy; it is determining whether globalization remains anchored in legal structure or enters an era of executive discretion. The ruling may take months, but the repricing has already begun — in equity markets, in supply-chain planning, and in the valuation models of long-term investors.

Disclaimer:This commentary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. Policy and market conditions are subject to uncertainty; independent professional judgment is advised.