2026-09-29 10:02:47 / 路透社
华盛顿，9月29日路透电 —— 美国最高法院下周开启的新开庭期或将纳入一批重大案件，其中包括涉及唐纳德·特朗普总统移民打压政策中一项拘留措施、预测市场监管，以及一项要求公立学校展示十诫的得克萨斯州法律的相关诉讼。
拥有6票对3票保守派多数席位的最高法院近年来持续推动美国法律向右转，其9个月的开庭期将于下周一启动，首日将就埃克森美孚（XOM.N）等石油公司是否需为加剧气候变化承担经济赔偿责任的重要案件进行口头辩论。
订阅《每日案卷》新闻简报，获取最新法律资讯
将最新法律新闻直接发送至您的收件箱，开启您的晨间资讯阅读。点击此处注册。
广告报道
大法官们仍在审议诸多待审案件，预计将于本周公布其中部分案件的受理决定。最高法院每个开庭期通常会审理约70起案件，目前已批准受理约24起。
强制拘留
特朗普政府已请求最高法院允许其继续拘留在共和党总统任内的移民打压行动中被捕的人员，无需为他们提供保释申请机会，即便这些人已在美国生活多年。
美国移民及海关执法局（ICE）摒弃了长期以来对移民法的解释，去年首次提出，已在美国定居的非美国公民——而非仅指边境入境人员——属于“入境申请人”范畴，可被强制拘留。
根据联邦移民法，“入境申请人”在移民法院审理其案件期间需接受强制拘留，且无权申请保释听证会。
在移民上诉委员会（隶属于司法部）采纳ICE的解释后，受雇于司法部的移民法官开始下令实施强制拘留。
德克萨斯州移民律师凯马尔·赫普森（Kemal Hepsen）表示，该问题已在下级法院充分审理，政府在联邦上诉法院的11起案件中输掉了9起。
“就法定解释问题而言，已无进一步审理空间，否则就会出现这样一种局面：你能否获得保释，取决于移民海关执法局将你押往哪个州，”赫普森说道。
预测市场
最高法院可能受理的另一桩争议聚焦于Kalshi和Polymarket等预测市场的监管问题，这些平台近年来呈现爆发式增长。针对Kalshi以及进军预测市场的Crypto.com和罗宾侠（HOOD.O）的相关上诉已提交至最高法院。
特朗普政府在该诉讼中支持预测市场平台。Polymarket去年获得了由总统小唐纳德·特朗普牵头的风投基金的投资。
预测市场运营商将其“事件合约”称为一种金融衍生品，应仅受联邦商品期货交易委员会监管。但两党组成的州联盟辩称，这些平台推出的体育相关合约属于赌博范畴，应受各州体育博彩法律监管。
联邦上诉法院在该问题上存在分歧。若最高法院最终认定预测市场属于赌博，这些平台将面临各州各不相同的禁令、税收、许可制度以及刑事法规。
佛罗里达州体育律师丹尼尔·沃拉克（Daniel Wallach）长期关注该诉讼，他表示，这起案件的社会和经济利害关系重大，最高法院很可能会在某个阶段介入审理。
“这场争议涉及的利益相关方包括50个州、数百个原住民部落、数百家赌场、数十亿美元规模的金融交易所、在线体育博彩公司以及联邦政府，”沃拉克说道。“这或许是你能想象到的涉及最广泛、最重要利益相关方的案件之一。”
十诫
多个得克萨斯州家庭在美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的支持下，已请求最高法院推翻该州2025年通过的法律，该法律要求公立中小学在教室中展示圣经中的十诫。
此前，总部位于新奥尔良的美国第五巡回上诉法院裁定，该法律并未违反美国宪法第一修正案中禁止政府确立国教的条款，也未侵犯宗教自由保护条款，相关方因此提起上诉。
“我们国家政教分离的基本原则意味着，决定宗教在儿童生活中扮演何种角色的，应该是家庭和信仰社区，而非政客，”得克萨斯州美国公民自由联盟律师克洛伊·坎普夫（Chloe Kempf）在一份声明中说道。
最高法院曾在1980年的“斯通诉格雷厄姆”案中推翻了类似的肯塔基州法律。但现任最高法院对宗教自由采取了更宽泛的解读立场。
1980年的判决适用了一套法律框架，而最高法院在2022年的一项裁决中摒弃了该框架。当时最高法院支持华盛顿州一所公立高中的一名橄榄球教练，该教练因赛后拒绝停止带领球员进行基督教祈祷而被停职。
“该法律并未告诉教堂、犹太会堂或清真寺该信仰什么、如何礼拜，也未规定他们该雇佣哪些牧师、拉比或伊玛目，”第五巡回上诉法院法官凯尔·邓肯（Kyle Duncan）在代表法院撰写的意见中写道。“它不会惩罚任何拒绝十诫的人，无论其拒绝的原因是什么。”
共和党主导的南部各州率先推动在教室中展示十诫。路易斯安那州于2024年通过了相关要求，随后是阿肯色州、得克萨斯州和阿拉巴马州。批评人士将这些法律称为美国日益抬头的基督教民族主义的组成部分。
路易斯安那州的相关案件也面临法律挑战，如果最高法院决定审理得克萨斯州的案件，路易斯安那州希望最高法院也能对本州的法律作出裁决。今年2月，第五巡回上诉法院允许路易斯安那州的该法案生效，但表示在裁决其合宪性之前，需要更多关于该指令执行方式的信息。
简·沃尔夫报道；威尔·邓纳姆编辑
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则。
US Supreme Court mulls immigrant detention, gambling, Ten Commandments cases
2026-09-29 10:02:47 / Reuters
WASHINGTON, Sept 29 (Reuters) – Some big cases may be added to the US Supreme Court’s docket for its new term that starts next week including ones involving a detention policy used in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, regulation of prediction markets and a Texas law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
The court, whose 6-3 conservative majority has moved US law steadily rightward in recent years, begins its nine-month term next Monday with arguments in an important case over whether oil companies like ExxonMobil
(XOM.N)
can be held financially liable for helping drive climate change.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Report Ad
The justices have a host of cases they are still deciding whether to hear, and are expected to announce some of them this week. The court typically hears arguments in about 70 cases each term, and already has granted about two dozen cases.
MANDATORY DETENTION
The Trump administration has asked the court to let it continue detaining people arrested in the Republican president’s immigration crackdown without giving them a chance to seek bond, even if they have lived in the United States for years.
Bucking a long-standing interpretation of immigration law, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement last year took the position that non-US citizens already residing in the country — and not just people arriving at the border — qualify as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention.
Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the United States are subject to mandatory detention while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.
After the Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the Justice Department, adopted the ICE interpretation, immigration judges, who are employed by the department, began ordering mandatory detention.
Kemal Hepsen, an immigration lawyer in Texas, said the issue has been fully aired in lower courts, with the administration losing 9 of 11 decisions by federal appeals courts.
“On the statutory question, there’s nothing left to percolate, and the alternative is a country where whether you can get bond depends on which state ICE drives you to,” Hepsen said.
PREDICTION MARKETS
Another dispute the Supreme Court may hear focuses on the regulation of prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which have experienced explosive growth. There are appeals at the court in cases involving Kalshi as well as Crypto.com and Robinhood
(HOOD.O)
, companies that have expanded into prediction markets.
The Trump administration has backed the prediction markets in the litigation. Polymarket last year secured an investment from a venture capital firm backed by the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.
Prediction market operators call their “event contracts” a type of financial derivative that should be exclusively regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency. A bipartisan coalition of states contends the sports-related offerings of these platforms amount to gambling, and should be regulated by their laws governing sports betting.
Federal appeals courts have been divided on the issue. If the Supreme Court eventually decides that prediction markets are gambling, the platforms would encounter a patchwork of bans, taxes, licensing regimes and criminal statutes.
The social and economic stakes make it likely the Supreme Court will step in at some point, according to Daniel Wallach, a sports lawyer in Florida who has followed the litigation.
“The stakeholder interest in this controversy encompasses 50 states, hundreds of Native American tribes, hundreds of casinos, multi-billion-dollar financial exchanges, online sports betting companies and the federal government,” Wallach said. “This probably is the most expansive and significant group of stakeholders that you could imagine for almost any case.”
TEN COMMANDMENTS
Several Texas families, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, have asked the Supreme Court to strike down the state’s 2025 law requiring public elementary and high schools to display the biblical Ten Commandments in classrooms.
They appealed after the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided the law did not violate the US Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion or its protections for the free exercise of religion.
“Our nation’s bedrock principle of separating church and state means that families and faith communities — not politicians — get to decide what role religion plays in children’s lives,” Chloe Kempf, a lawyer at the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement.
The Supreme Court struck down a similar Kentucky law in a 1980 decision called Stone v. Graham. But the current court has taken an expansive view of religious freedom.
The 1980 decision applied a legal framework that the Supreme Court discarded in a 2022 ruling siding with a football coach at a public high school in Washington state who was suspended for refusing to stop leading Christian prayers with players on the field after games.
The Texas law “does not tell churches or synagogues or mosques what to believe or how to worship or whom to employ as priests, rabbis or imams,” Judge Kyle Duncan wrote for the 5th Circuit. “It punishes no one who rejects the Ten Commandments, no matter the reason.”
Republican-led states in the South have led the way in putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Louisiana passed such a requirement in 2024, followed by Arkansas, Texas and Alabama. Critics have portrayed these laws as a component of what they see as rising Christian nationalism in the United States.
The Louisiana case also has drawn legal challenges, and the state wants the Supreme Court to weigh in on its law if the justices decide to hear arguments over the Texas law. The 5th Circuit in February let Louisiana’s measure take effect, but said it needed more information about how the mandate would be implemented before ruling on its constitutionality.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复