华盛顿-特朗普政府接管了这场斗争关税他要求法官迅速裁定，根据联邦法律，总统有权征收全面的进口税。
政府呼吁法院撤销一项上诉法院裁决发现唐纳德·特朗普总统的大部分关税都是非法使用紧急权力法.
这是特朗普政府向他帮助塑造的最高法院提起的一系列上诉中的最新一起，预计将把总统贸易政策的核心内容提交给大法官。
美国联邦巡回上诉法院暂时保留关税，但政府仍呼吁高等法院迅速干预周三晚些时候以电子方式提交的请愿书，并提供给美联社。预计该案将于周四正式审理。
副检察长D. John Sauer要求法官接手此案，并在11月初听取辩论。
“这一决定给正在进行的外交谈判蒙上了不确定性的阴影，总统在过去五个月里一直通过关税进行谈判，危及已经谈判的框架协议和正在进行的谈判，”他写道。"这件事的利害关系再大不过了。"
但自由正义中心(Liberty Justice Center)高级律师兼诉讼主管杰弗里·施瓦布(Jeffrey Schwab)表示，受到关税和不确定性打击的小企业也面临很高的风险。
“这些非法关税对小企业造成严重伤害，危及它们的生存。我们希望为我们的客户迅速解决这个案件，”他说。
这些企业赢了两次，一次是在专注于贸易的联邦法院，另一次是上诉法院7比4的裁决。
他们的诉讼是挑战关税和不稳定推出的几起诉讼之一，这些关税和不稳定推出动摇了全球市场，疏远了美国的贸易伙伴和盟友，并引发了对价格上涨和经济增长放缓的担忧。
但特朗普也利用这些税收向欧盟、日本和其他国家施压，要求它们接受新的贸易协议。截至8月底，关税收入总计1590亿美元，是去年同期的两倍多。
美国联邦巡回上诉法院的大多数法官认为，1977年的《国际紧急经济权力法》(International Emergency Economic Powers Act，简称IEEPA)没有让特朗普篡夺国会制定关税的权力。然而，持反对意见的人说，法律确实允许总统在紧急情况下监管进口，而没有明确的限制。
该裁决涉及两套进口税，特朗普都以宣布国家紧急状态为由:4月份首次宣布的关税和二月份的从加拿大、中国和墨西哥进口。
宪法赋予国会征税的权力，包括关税。但几十年来，立法者将权力移交给了总统，特朗普充分利用了权力真空。
上诉法院的裁决没有涵盖特朗普的一些关税，包括对外国钢铁、铝和汽车的征税。这也不包括民主党总统乔·拜登(Joe Biden)在特朗普第一任期对中国征收的关税。
特朗普可以根据其他法律征收关税，但这些法律对他采取行动的速度和严厉程度有更多限制。
政府辩称，如果关税被取消，它可能不得不退还一部分已征收的进口税，这对美国财政部是一个金融打击。
Trump asks Supreme Court to quickly take up tariffs case and reverse ruling
WASHINGTON --The Trump administration took the fight overtariffsto the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to rule quickly that the president has the power to impose sweeping import taxes under federal law.
The government called on the court to reverse anappeals court rulingthat found most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs are an illegal use of anemergency powers law.
It's the latest in a series of Trump administration appeals to a Supreme Court he helped shape, and one that is expected to put a centerpiece of the president's trade policy before the justices.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitleft the tariffs in place for now, but the administration nevertheless called on the high court to intervene quickly in a petition filed electronically late Wednesday and provided to The Associated Press. It was expected to be formally docketed on Thursday.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to take up the case and hear arguments in early November.
“That decision casts a pall of uncertainty upon ongoing foreign negotiations that the President has been pursuing through tariffs over the past five months, jeopardizing both already negotiated framework deals and ongoing negotiations,” he wrote. “The stakes in this case could not be higher.”
But the stakes are also high for small businesses battered by tariffs and uncertainty, said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center.
“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients,” he said.
The businesses have twice prevailed, once at a federal court focused on trade and again with the appeals court's 7-4 ruling.
Their lawsuit is one of several challenging the tariffs and erratic rollout that have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.
But Trump has also used the levies to pressure the European Union, Japan and other countries into accepting new trade deals. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by late August, more than double what it was at the same point the year before.
Most judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, did not let Trump usurp congressional power to set tariffs. The dissenters, though, said the law does allow the president to regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations.
The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency:the tariffs first announced in Apriland theones from Februaryon imports from Canada, China and Mexico.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over the decades, lawmakers have ceded authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.
Some Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, weren’t covered by the appeals court ruling. It also does not include tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.
The government has argued that if the tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.
