2026年9月2日 / 美国东部时间晚上9:10 / 哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）新闻
作者：乔·沃尔什
乔·沃尔什是CBS新闻数字政治高级编辑。他此前曾为《福布斯》报道突发新闻，并在波士顿从事本地新闻工作。
一名联邦法官已暂时叫停特朗普的一项行政令，该政令旨在阻止特定人群自动通过出生途径成为美国公民。
自去年重返白宫以来，特朗普总统一直试图取消或限制出生公民权。今年6月，最高法院驳回了他最初终止出生公民权的尝试，随后他于上月签署了一项范围更窄的行政令，拒绝向“敌方外国人”、外国政府雇员以及据称参与“生育旅游”的人的子女授予公民身份。
周三，美国地区法官黛博拉·博德曼也暂时叫停了特朗普政府执行这项新政令。她认定提起诉讼的一方很有可能证明，该政令违反了他们根据宪法第十四修正案所享有的权利。该修正案规定“所有在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖的人，都是合众国的和他们居住州的公民”。
博德曼并未详细分析特朗普政府政令中列出的出生公民权具体例外情形，而是援引了最高法院此前的裁决，称其为“现行法律”。
“就已认证的群体而言，2026年这项行政令在适用层面几乎肯定是违宪的，原因很简单：最高法院在‘芭芭拉案’中早已裁定，该群体的子女自出生起即为公民，”她说道。“本院必须再次采取初步禁令，阻止总统最新一次试图剥夺他们的公民权的举措生效。”
CBS新闻已联系白宫征求评论。
特朗普的这项行政令针对的是“生育旅游”，即分娩前前往美国进行“商业交易”的行为。该政令还试图阻止父母被认定为“敌方外国人”的子女获得公民身份，这类父母包括属于恐怖组织的成员——特朗普政府已将贩毒集团纳入这一范畴。
blob:https://www.cbsnews.com/895a87bf-1630-44eb-93e2-1ec49255b8c8
政府方律师辩称，最高法院今夏的裁决并未阻止特朗普政府发布规则限制出生公民权，并指出此前已存在一些公认的例外情形，包括外交官子女和敌方外国人子女。
在一份提交的文件中，司法部律师表示，最高法院仅裁定临时移民或无证移民的子女——即特朗普最初推动终止出生公民权所涉及的群体“不被排除在出生公民权之外”。但法院“从未暗示过，此类父母所生的每个孩子都自动成为公民，不存在任何例外”。
包括多名移民和倡导组织CASA在内的原告方辩称，历史上公认的出生公民权例外情形范围狭窄，而这项新的行政令却不正当地“试图扩大这些例外类别”。
“总统无权单方面改写宪法，应当禁止他依据这项或任何其他行政令剥夺已认证群体成员的公民身份，”原告方律师上周写道。
原告方律师还指出，“被告方可能基于针对其父母的虚假指控剥夺群体成员公民身份的风险是可信的”。他们提到，特朗普政府对“敌方外国人”的定义极为宽泛，将某些跨国犯罪团伙的疑似成员纳入其中，而一些根据该认定被驱逐的人否认自己有帮派 membership。
律师们还写道，部分原告担心，仅仅因为购买了前往美国的机票，他们就可能违反政令中针对参与“商业交易”人员的条款。
Judge blocks Trump’s latest effort to narrow birthright citizenship
September 2, 2026 / 9:10 PM EDT / CBS News
By Joe Walsh
Joe Walsh is a senior editor for digital politics at CBS News. Joe previously covered breaking news for Forbes and local news in Boston.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked a Trump executive order that would prevent certain people from automatically becoming U.S. citizens at birth.
Since returning to office last year, President Trump has sought to eliminate or narrow birthright citizenship. After the Supreme Court in June struck down his initial attempt to end birthright citizenship, he signed a narrower order last month to deny citizenship to children of “alien enemies,” foreign government employees and people allegedly engaged in “birth tourism.”
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman temporarily halted the Trump administration from enforcing the new order, too. She found a group of people who sued are likely to succeed in showing the order violates their rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Boardman did not extensively analyze the specific exceptions to birthright citizenship laid out in the Trump administration’s order, instead pointing to the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling, calling it “the law of the land.”
“The 2026 Executive Order is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth,” she said. “This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them.”
CBS News has reached out to the White House for comment.
Mr. Trump’s executive order was directed at “birth tourism,” or the practice of engaging in a “commercial transaction” to travel to the United States before giving birth. It also sought to block citizenship for people whose parents are deemed “alien enemies” because they belong to terrorist organizations — a designation the Trump administration has applied to drug cartels.
blob:https://www.cbsnews.com/895a87bf-1630-44eb-93e2-1ec49255b8c8
Attorneys for the government argued the Supreme Court’s ruling over the summer didn’t prevent the Trump administration from issuing rules to narrow birthright citizenship, noting that some exceptions have been recognized, including for the children of diplomats and alien enemies.
In a filing, Justice Department lawyers said the Supreme Court merely found the children of temporary or undocumented immigrants — the category covered by Mr. Trump’s first push to end birthright citizenship — “are not disqualified from birthright citizenship.” But the court “never suggested that every child born to such parents is per se a citizen, with no exceptions.”
The plaintiffs, including several immigrants and the advocacy group CASA, argued that historically accepted exceptions to birthright citizenship are narrow, and the new executive order is unconstitutionally “attempting to expand those categories.”
“The President has no power to unilaterally rewrite the Constitution, and he should be enjoined from denying citizenship to the members of the certified class under this or any other Executive Order,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote last week.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote that the “risk that Defendants might deprive class members of citizenship based on false allegations against their parents is credible.” They noted that the Trump administration has defined “alien enemies” extremely broadly to include alleged members of certain transnational criminal groups, and some people who have been deported under that designation have denied gang membership.
Lawyers also wrote that some of the plaintiffs are concerned that by buying a plane ticket to travel to the United States, they may run afoul of the part of the executive order targeted at people who engaged in a “commercial transaction.”
发表回复