2026-08-24 20:59:07 GMT / 路透社
2026年8月20日摄于美国马萨诸塞州波士顿一所公共图书馆外的投票投递箱，当时距中期初选选举尚有一段时间。路透社/布莱恩·斯奈德
获取授权许可，将在新标签页打开
8月24日 路透社电 — 美国最高法院周一驳回了一项司法裁决，该裁决此前阻止唐纳德·特朗普总统政府实施其行政令，以限制11月中期选举前的邮寄选票使用——不过另有一项限制措施仍在生效。此次中期选举将决定国会的控制权归属。
大法官们批准了司法部的紧急申请，暂停了波士顿联邦法官因迪拉·塔尔瓦尼在6月下达的禁制令。该禁制令阻止这位共和党总统在23个多数由民主党执政的州及华盛顿特区组成的联盟中推行其指令，这些州和特区起诉反对该指令。
路透社每日简报通讯为您提供开启一天所需的全部新闻。点击此处订阅。
![Image 1]
最高法院目前由6名保守派大法官和3名自由派大法官组成。3名自由派大法官对此次裁定表示异议。
最高法院的此次行动为各州在未来几个月、临近中期选举时再次提起诉讼留下了空间。
不过，最高法院并未就塔尔瓦尼在8月11日下达的另一项禁制令采取行动，该禁制令阻止美国邮政总局在全国范围内执行该行政令中针对邮寄投票的更严格规定。塔尔瓦尼是在几个人权投票组织提起的另一桩诉讼中下达该命令的。
司法部曾敦促最高法院明确表示，其此次行动适用于塔尔瓦尼下达的两项禁制令，但大法官们周一并未就此作出表态。
两起诉讼均指控特朗普的行政令违反宪法。
特朗普3月发布的行政令
特朗普于3月发布的行政令要求国土安全部编制并向各州提交一份符合每个州投票资格的美国公民名单，同时要求司法部优先调查和起诉那些向被认定为“无资格”参与联邦选举的人发放选票的州和地方选举官员。
该行政令还要求美国邮政总局仅向每个州批准的邮寄选票名单上的选民递送选票。美国邮政总局最近已着手执行特朗普的这一指令。
特朗普誓言要在中期选举前在全国范围内取消邮寄选票的使用，并长期质疑这类选票的安全性，尽管鲜有证据表明存在选民欺诈行为。
共和党人希望在竞争激烈的中期选举中保住对国会的控制权。鉴于民主党选民历来比共和党选民更倾向于使用邮寄选票，限制邮寄选票将对共和党 disproportionately 有利。
法官裁定特朗普无权更改选举规则
今年6月，塔尔瓦尼裁定总统无权下令更改各州管理联邦选举的方式，她指出根据美国宪法，各州有权确定选民资格要求。该法官还提到，联邦机构无权为每个州编制准确的公民名单。
司法部曾表示，质疑特朗普指令的诉讼为时过早，各州在现阶段不具备提起诉讼所需的法律地位。特朗普政府称，相关机构尚未采取任何影响各州的具体行动，因此各州所称的任何损害都是推测性的。
各州则辩称，他们的主张并非假设性的，政府“在11月中期选举前夕匆忙更改邮寄投票规则的行为，可能会剥夺大量选民的投票权”。
塔尔瓦尼驳回了政府的论点，认定诉讼并非提起过晚，各州具备法律地位，因为它们将面临选举管理中断、合规成本以及可信的刑事起诉威胁。
特朗普的行政令是他更广泛地从根本上改革美国选举制度的举措之一。特朗普此前曾虚假声称美国选举存在大规模舞弊，包括他在2020年大选中输给民主党人乔·拜登一事，他一直敦促由共和党控制的国会通过一项颇具争议的投票限制法案《拯救美国法案》（SAVE America Act）。
安德鲁·钟在纽约报道；威尔·邓汉姆与马修·刘易斯编辑
本社报道准则：汤森路透信托原则。
US Supreme Court hands a win to Trump over mail-in ballot restrictions
2026-08-24 20:59:07 GMT / Reuters
A ballot drop box outside a public library, ahead of the midterm primary election, in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S., August 20, 2026. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
Aug 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted a judicial decision blocking President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing his executive order to restrict the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections that will decide control of Congress — though another remains.
The justices granted a Justice Department emergency request to put on hold an injunction that Boston-based U.S. Judge Indira Talwani imposed in June preventing the Republican president from proceeding with his directive in a coalition of 23 mostly Democratic-governed states and Washington, D.C. that had sued to stop it.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
![Image 1]
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The three liberal justices dissented from the decision.
The Supreme Court’s action leaves open the door to the states suing again in the coming months as the midterm contest approaches.
The court did not act, however, on another injunction issued by Talwani on August 11 that blocked the U.S. Postal Service nationwide from enforcing the directive’s tighter rules for voting by mail. The judge issued that order in a separate lawsuit filed by several voting-rights groups.
The Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to make clear that its action applied to both of Talwani’s injunctions, but the justices did not do so on Monday.
Both lawsuits had challenged Trump’s order as unconstitutional.
TRUMP’S MARCH EXECUTIVE ORDER
Trump’s executive order, issued in March, directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to the states a list of U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state, and the Justice Department to prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local election officials who issue ballots to people deemed “not eligible” to vote in federal elections.
It also required the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list. The Postal Service recently moved to implement Trump’s directive.
Trump has vowed to end the use of mail-in ballots nationwide before the midterms, and has long cast doubt on the security of such ballots, although evidence of voter fraud is rare.
Republicans are seeking to retain control of Congress in the hotly contested midterms. Restricting mail-in ballots would stand to disproportionately benefit Republicans given that Democratic voters traditionally have been more likely to use mail-in ballots than Republican voters.
JUDGE RULED TRUMP LACKED AUTHORITY
In June, Talwani ruled that the president lacked the authority to order changes in how states administer federal elections, noting that under the U.S. Constitution, states have the role of determining voter-eligibility requirements. The judge also noted that federal agencies lack the ability to compile accurate citizen lists for each state.
The Justice Department had said the lawsuit challenging Trump’s directive was premature and that the states did not have the required legal standing at this stage to sue. The agencies have not yet taken any concrete actions that impact the states and so any harm they allege is speculative, the administration said.
The states contend that their claims are not hypothetical and that the administration’s “rushed effort to change the rules of mail voting on the eve of the November midterms risks disenfranchising a substantial number of voters.”
The judge rejected the administration’s arguments, finding that the suit was not filed too soon and that the states had legal standing because they would face election administration disruption, compliance costs and a credible threat of criminal prosecution.
Trump’s executive order is part of his wider efforts to make fundamental changes in U.S. elections. Trump, who has made false claims of widespread fraud in U.S. elections including his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden, has pressed the Republican-controlled Congress to pass a contentious package of voting restrictions called the SAVE America Act.
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham and Matthew Lewis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复