2026-08-04T10:05:02.843Z / 路透社
- 路透社在93起以第一修正案为依据作出判决的案件中，识别出75起不利于特朗普政府的裁决
- 路透社的审查显示，政府对约三分之二的不利裁决提起了上诉
- 在75起案件中，由共和党总统任命的法官在10起案件中作出了不利于特朗普的裁决
8月4日电——美国总统唐纳德·特朗普作为言论自由的拥护者，多次为其第二任期竞选，并在2025年1月的就职演说中承诺终止他所说的多年来的“政府审查”。
自那以来，一连串法院裁决认定他的政府反其道而行之。路透社识别出75起联邦法官裁决，认定特朗普政府侵犯了第一修正案赋予的权利，包括言论、宗教和新闻自由。
通过《每日案卷》时事通讯将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的早晨。点击此处注册。
这场前所未有的宪法层面的反击，包括多次认定政府压制或扼杀了反对这位共和党人议程的公民和团体的言论。
“总统显然误解了政府根本不能因为他鄙视的言论进行报复，这对美国人的言论自由构成了巨大威胁，”总部位于波士顿的美国地区法官威廉·杨写道。
这位由共和党总统罗纳德·里根任命的法官在9月裁定，政府因外国学生和教师支持巴勒斯坦的倡导行为，非法拘留、驱逐并吊销了他们的签证。其他法官发现，联邦机构终止了对哈佛大学等大学的拨款，原因是这些大学拒绝与他的意识形态议程保持一致；报复了基于其法律辩护的律师事务所；并在抗议活动中使用过度武力。
特朗普政府官员多次称作出不利于他们的裁决的联邦法官是“激进主义者”，称他们正在干涉总统的行政权力。白宫发言人阿比盖尔·杰克逊在一份声明中批评了第一修正案相关裁决，称“联邦司法机构通过其非法裁决多次危及并阻碍了美国人民的选举选择。”
连败纪录
路透社发现，在特朗普第二任期内，法官就第一修正案诉求作出裁决的总共93起案件中，有75起下级法院裁决不利于特朗普政府。特朗普的连败主要来自民主党总统任命的法官，但共和党任命的法官也作出了10起相关裁决。
相比之下，在民主党总统乔··拜登的任期内，路透社仅识别出27起下级法院法官就针对其议程的第一修正案挑战作出裁决的案件。其中13起案件的裁决不利于拜登政府。大多数不利于拜登政府的下级法院裁决涉及疫苗授权，这些挑战以宗教自由为由提出。
路透社通过检索联邦法院记录和法律研究服务机构威世智（Westlaw）来统计第一修正案案件。路透社和威世智均属于汤森路透集团。当类似诉讼被法院合并审理，或法官在同一诉讼中作出多项裁决时，路透社将其计为一起案件。本次审查聚焦于针对特朗普政府提起的民事诉讼，排除了自我代理的诉讼当事人提起的案件。
部分裁决属于初步裁决，意味着法官在听取案件全部实质内容之前，就针对快速行动的请求作出了裁定。
这些诉讼通常由特朗普的意识形态对手或媒体组织提起，例如《纽约时报》和美联社请求法官叫停限制他们报道白宫或五角大楼能力的措施。《纽约时报》和美联社在下级法院胜诉，但部分裁决因上诉而暂停执行。
特朗普政府在约三分之二的案件中提起上诉，同时选择让其他裁决生效。它选择不挑战那些例如阻止其干涉学术界人士在课堂上讨论内容，以及削减长期拨款给反对其议程的法律和医疗组织的裁决。
在75起不利于特朗普的裁决中，政府对其中15起提起了上诉，并成功说服法院要么暂停地区法院的第一修正案裁决，要么彻底推翻该裁决。
在政府取得的重大胜利中，今年有两家上诉法院推翻了下级法院的裁决，这些裁决曾导致参加哥伦比亚大学活动的亲巴勒斯坦校园活动人士马哈茂德·哈利勒和穆罕辛·马达维获释。上诉法官发现下级法院无权审理这些案件，未就诉讼的实质内容作出裁决。哈利勒的律师表示，他计划向美国最高法院提起上诉。
在政府在实质内容上胜诉的一起上诉案中，总部位于旧金山的美国第九巡回上诉法院于2月推翻了一项裁决，该裁决曾阻止特朗普政府剥夺数十万联邦雇员与美国机构进行工会谈判的权利。
工会辩称，特朗普采取这一行动是为了报复他们挑战其政府的政策，违反了第一修正案。但由三名法官组成的合议庭表示，无论特朗普是否打算惩罚工会的倡导行为，他都会采取同样的行动。
其他上诉法院则态度不那么友好。今年5月，第九巡回法院同意下级法院法官的裁定，即终止对加州大学研究人员的联邦拨款——作为特朗普反多元化、公平性和包容性（DEI）举措的一部分——构成了基于观点的歧视。
抨击“审查制度”
特朗普在抨击“在线审查制度”后赢得了第二任期，他称拜登政府在新冠疫情期间和2020年大选后要求媒体公司压制所谓的虚假信息时实施了这一制度。他呼应了首次总统竞选时的主题，包括反对他所说的“取消文化”，当时一些保守派人士抱怨社会和职业压力阻碍了他们表达政治观点。
2025年就职典礼数小时后，特朗普签署了一项题为“恢复言论自由和结束联邦审查”的行政命令，指示任何联邦机构或雇员都不得违宪地限制美国人的言论权利。
批评人士称，这一承诺很快就被一连串其他行政命令和政策破坏，这些命令和政策旨在报复对手或针对总统反对的观点。
其中早期的命令包括指示终止其政府认为支持“性别意识形态”或多元化、公平性和包容性（DEI）的联邦资金，这两个主题是许多指控政府违反第一修正案的诉讼的核心。
威廉与玛丽法学院教授蒂莫西·齐克著有《特朗普2.0：行政权力与第一修正案》一书，他表示，自上世纪初伍德罗·威尔逊总统在第一次红色恐慌期间监督数千次驱逐和逮捕以来，没有哪位总统采取过如此广泛的压制言论的行动。第一次红色恐慌是一段反共产主义和反移民的狂热时期。
齐克表示，当时，关于第一修正案是否保护批评政府的言论的法院先例还远不明确。“特朗普所处的环境中，第一修正案的界限非常明确，”他说。
根据华盛顿联邦上诉法院5月份听取的辩论，该法院似乎准备维持下级法院的裁决，即特朗普针对律师事务所和律师的行动侵犯了言论自由。
其中一项裁决是2025年5月由民主党总统巴拉克·奥巴马任命的美国地区法官贝里尔·豪厄尔作出的，她谴责特朗普通过一项行政命令 targeting 珀金斯·科伊律师事务所，该命令暂停了该律所律师的安全许可，并禁止他们进入联邦大楼，原因是该律所曾为他的政治对手工作。
“通过针对不受欢迎的企业或个人采取惩罚性政府行动来解决个人恩怨，不是美国政府或美国总统权力的合法使用方式，”豪厄尔写道。
（简·沃尔夫和内特·雷蒙德报道；艾米·史蒂文斯和安娜·德里弗编辑）
Trump vowed to ‘bring free speech back.’ Judges in 75 cases ruled that he has stifled it
2026-08-04T10:05:02.843Z / Reuters
- Reuters identified 75 rulings against Trump administration among 93 cases decided on First-Amendment grounds
- Administration has appealed about two-thirds of adverse rulings, Reuters review shows
- Republican-appointed judges ruled against Trump in 10 of the 75 cases
Aug 4 – U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly campaigned for his second term as a champion of free expression, vowing in his January 2025 inaugural address to stop what he described as years of “government censorship.”
Since then, a wave of court rulings has concluded his administration has done the opposite. Reuters identified 75 federal-judge rulings finding Trump’s government infringed on First-Amendment rights including freedoms of speech, religion, and the press.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
The unprecedented pushback on constitutional grounds has included repeated findings that the administration chilled or squelched the speech of citizens and groups opposing the Republican’s agenda.
“The President’s palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans’ freedom of speech,” Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young wrote.
The judge, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, ruled in September that the administration illegally detained, deported and revoked visas of foreign students and faculty because of their pro-Palestinian advocacy. Other judges found federal agencies terminated grants awarded to universities including Harvard for refusing to align with his ideological agenda; retaliated against law firms based on their legal advocacy; and used excessive force at protests.
Trump administration officials have repeatedly called federal judges ruling against them “activists” who are interfering with the president’s executive authority. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson criticized the First-Amendment rulings in a statement, saying “the federal judiciary has repeatedly endangered and obstructed the election choices of the American people with its unlawful rulings.”
LOSING STREAK
The 75 cases that produced lower-court rulings against the Trump administration were among 93 total cases during his second term in which judges addressed First-Amendment arguments, Reuters found. Trump’s losing streak mostly came from judges appointed by Democratic presidents, but Republican appointees delivered decisions in 10 cases.
By comparison, during Democratic President Joe Biden’s presidential term, Reuters identified just 27 cases in which lower-court judges weighed First-Amendment challenges to his agenda. Judges ruled against his administration in 13 of those. Most of the lower-court rulings against the Biden administration involved its vaccine mandates, which were challenged on religious-freedom grounds.
Reuters tallied the First-Amendment cases by searching federal court records and Westlaw, a legal research service. Both Reuters and Westlaw are owned by Thomson Reuters. When similar lawsuits were consolidated by a court or when a judge issued multiple rulings in the same lawsuit, Reuters counted them as one case. The review focused on civil lawsuits filed against the Trump administration and excluded cases by self-represented litigants.
Some of the rulings are preliminary, meaning that the judge acted on a request for speedy action before hearing the full merits of the case.
The lawsuits were frequently filed by Trump’s ideological foes or by media organizations, such as when the New York Times and Associated Press asked judges to halt restrictions on their ability to cover the White House or the Pentagon. The AP and the New York Times won at the lower court level, though some of the rulings are on hold pending appeal.
The Trump administration launched appeals in about two-thirds of the cases while electing to let other rulings stand. It chose not to challenge rulings that, for instance, prevented it from interfering with what academics can discuss in classrooms and from slashing longstanding grants awarded to legal and medical organizations that have opposed the administration’s agenda.
In appeals of 15 of the 75 rulings that went against Trump, his administration successfully persuaded courts either to put a district court judge’s First-Amendment ruling on hold or overturn it entirely.
In significant victories for the administration, two appeals courts this year have overturned lower-court rulings that had led to the release of pro-Palestinian campus activists who had attended Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi. The appellate judges found the lower courts had no jurisdiction to hear those cases, without ruling on the lawsuits’ merits. Khalil’s lawyers have said he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In one appeal the administration did win on the merits, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February overturned a ruling that had blocked the Trump administration from stripping hundreds of thousands of federal workers of the ability to engage in union bargaining with U.S. agencies.
The unions argued that Trump took that action in order to retaliate against them challenging his administration’s policies, in violation of the First Amendment. But a three-judge panel said Trump would have taken the same action whether or not he intended to punish unions for their advocacy.
Other appeals courts have been less receptive. In May, the 9th Circuit
agreed
with a lower-court judge that terminating federal grants awarded to University of California researchers – as part of Trump’s anti-DEI push – constituted viewpoint discrimination.
RAILING AGAINST ‘CENSORSHIP’
Trump rode to his second-term win after railing against an “online censorship regime” that he said the Biden administration imposed when it required media companies to suppress alleged misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and after the 2020 election. He echoed themes from his first presidential campaign, including opposition to what he called “cancel culture,” as some conservatives complained that social and professional pressures discouraged the expression of their political views.
Hours after his 2025 inauguration, Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” which directed that no federal agency or employee would unconstitutionally abridge Americans’ speech rights.
Critics say that promise was almost immediately undercut by a flurry of other executive orders and policies seeking to exact retribution against foes or targeting viewpoints the president opposed.
Among those early orders were those directing an end to federal funding his administration deemed as supporting “gender ideology” or diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), two subjects at the heart of many of the lawsuits alleging First-Amendment violations by the administration.
Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School and author of a book titled “Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment,” said no president has taken such sweeping action to suppress speech since President Woodrow Wilson, early last century, oversaw the thousands of deportations and arrests during the First Red Scare, a period of anti-communist and anti-immigrant fervor.
At that time, Zick said, court precedents were far less clear on whether the First Amendment protects speech critical of the government. “Trump is operating in this situation where the First Amendment’s boundaries are very clear,” he said.
A Washington federal appeals court appears poised based on arguments it heard in May to uphold lower courts’ decisions that Trump’s campaign against law firms and lawyers infringed upon free speech.
Among those decisions was a May 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, who castigated Trump for targeting the law firm Perkins Coie through an executive order that suspended its lawyers’ security clearances and barred them from entering federal buildings based on its past work for his political opponents.
“Settling personal vendettas by targeting a disliked business or individual for punitive government action is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President,” Howell wrote.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Nate Raymond; editing by Amy Stevens and Anna Driver)
发表回复