2026年11月2日 16:58:25.604Z / CNN 政治新闻
美国总统唐纳德·特朗普于周一敦促最高法院，强制加利福尼亚州排除可能多达数千张选票——司法部声称这些选票可能由非公民投出，这一诉求前景渺茫，已被多个下级法院驳回。
此次选举日前夜提出的上诉，让最高法院6名保守派大法官组成的多数派，不得不在证据不明、时间极端紧迫的情况下，对特朗普提出的大范围非公民投票指控进行裁决。
即便是在紧急案件中，最高法院也往往需要数周时间才能对备受瞩目的争议作出裁决。
全国范围内已有数千万选民提前投票。
美国司法部 Solicitor General D. 约翰·绍尔对法院表示：“本办公室获悉，根据收到信息时的公开可用资料，美国已确认超过2万名看似在加利福尼亚州登记投票的个人，但在美国政府看来，这些人很可能并非美国公民。”
作为特朗普政府的首席上诉律师，绍尔敦促法院批准“一项适度补救措施”，即排除这些人投出的所有选票，直到相关指控得到解决。
但下级法院已驳回了这一主张，而且政府上诉的时间节点也让这一请求难以实现。
周五，美国第九巡回上诉法院禁止联邦政府干预加利福尼亚州邮寄选票的计票工作，裁定联邦政府无权指导各州如何运作选举。
“如果美国认为邮寄选票需要采取不同程序，我们认为应当向国会提出建议，而非诉诸法院，”上诉法院在一份2比1的裁决中写道，该裁决由特朗普提名的美国巡回法官马克·本内特和前总统乔·拜登任命的加布里埃尔·桑切斯作出。
时间节点也是第九巡回上诉法院驳回特朗普诉求的另一个原因。
“我认为Solicitor General办公室在陈述事实时格外谨慎，而这些事实是花了整个周末才梳理清楚的，”圣母大学法学院选举法专家德里克·穆勒表示。
他指出，此次上诉“比诉讼早期阶段的一些声明更为谨慎”，但请求的时间节点可能会导致法院拒绝受理且不给出解释。
司法部主张，联邦政府在确保仅公民才能投票方面具有宪法层面的利益。该部门还声称，加利福尼亚州未调查政府标记的登记选民，这妨碍了禁止非公民投票的联邦刑法的执行。
加利福尼亚州和投票权组织反驳称，联邦政府过去关于非公民选民的指控未通过审查，当前指控基于模糊证据，可能导致公民被剥夺选举权，且特朗普政府没有法律权力指示州官员如何处理该问题。这些主张在作出不利于特朗普裁决的下级联邦法院中得到了支持。
“地区法院发现，非公民投票的风险最多只能说是不确定的，且已被加利福尼亚州既定的选民资格程序缓和，”第九巡回上诉法院周五写道。“相比之下，批准美国所请求的救济可能会导致公民被剥夺选举权，这存在实质性风险。”
美国巡回法官帕特里克·布马泰在异议意见中指出，特朗普政府仅要求暂停将公民投出的选票与涉嫌非公民投出的选票合并计票。各方一致认为，一旦这些选票完成处理，就无法再将其分离。
“纵观历史，联邦法院一直通过发布禁令禁止违反法律的州行动，以保护我们公民的投票权和公民权利，”特朗普提名的布马泰写道。“常识也告诉我们，联邦政府不应坐视不管，任由某一州允许违反联邦法律，尤其是在联邦选举的完整性面临风险之际。”
上诉法院还提出了一个可能对最高法院具有决定性意义的问题。根据名为“珀塞尔原则”的法律理论，大法官们长期以来一直告诫联邦法院不要在最后时刻干预、修改选举规则。
特朗普在最高法院紧急选举上诉中的结果喜忧参半。最值得注意的是，最高法院在9月驳回了总统赋予美国邮政服务扣留特定邮寄选票的特别权力的企图。但几天后，法院支持了国土安全部，允许其继续向州选举官员提供有争议的公民身份数据。
“尽管屡屡受挫，联邦政府仍在坚持同样的主张，”公共权益项目（Public Rights Project）首席项目官乔恩·米勒表示，该组织是对抗司法部的法律团队成员之一。“这一案件已在上诉法院和地区法院之间辗转——而每次，法院都认定司法部无权获得其寻求的救济。”
本报道已补充更多细节。
Trump’s California ballot appeal puts Supreme Court in center of fight over allegations of noncitizen voting
2026-11-02T16:58:25.604Z / CNN Politics
President Donald Trump on Monday urged the Supreme Court to force California to set aside potentially thousands of ballots the Justice Department claims may have been cast by noncitizens, a longshot request that multiple lower courts have rejected.
The eve-of-election appeal puts the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in the position of weighing in on Trump’s sweeping allegations of widespread noncitizen voting based on an uncertain record and an exceedingly fast timeline.
Even in emergency cases, the court often takes weeks to decide high-profile controversies.
Tens of millions of voters have already cast early ballots nationwide.
“This office has been informed that the United States has identified more than 20,000 individuals who appear to be registered to vote in California based on publicly available information at the time that information was received, but who, in the United States’ view, are likely not U.S. citizens,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court.
Sauer, the Trump administration’s top appellate attorney, urged the court to grant the “modest remedy” of setting aside any ballots cast by those individuals until the allegations can be resolved.
But lower courts have rejected that argument, and the timing of the administration’s appeal made the request a tall order.
On Friday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals barred the administration from intervening in California’s mail-in ballot counting, concluding that the federal government has no power to dictate to states how to run elections.
“If the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts,” the appeals court wrote in a 2-1 decision that was issued by US Circuit Judges Mark Bennett, a Trump nominee, and Gabriel Sanchez, who was named to the bench by former President Joe Biden.
Timing was another reason why the 9th Circuit rejected Trump.
“I assume the Solicitor General’s office took much more caution with its representations of the facts, which took the weekend to develop,” said Derek Muller, an election law expert at Notre Dame Law School.
The appeal, he noted, “is more careful than some of the statements made in the earlier stages of the litigation,” but that the timing of the request could lead the court to reject it without explanation.
DOJ has argued the federal government has a constitutional interest in ensuring that only citizens vote. It also claims that California’s failure to investigate the registered voters the administration has flagged is frustrating enforcement of the federal criminal law banning noncitizen voting.
California and voting rights groups have countered that the federal government’s past claims of noncitizen voters have not withstood scrutiny, that the current claims are based on fuzzy evidence that risks disenfranchising citizens and that the Trump administration doesn’t have legal authority to tell state officials how to handle the issue. Those are arguments that found purchase in lower federal courts that ruled against Trump.
“The district court found that the risks that noncitizens are voting are, at best, uncertain, and also tempered by California’s established voter-eligibility procedures,” the 9th Circuit wrote Friday. “In contrast, there is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement.”
In his dissent, US Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay noted that the Trump administration was asking only to halt the mixing of ballots cast by citizens and alleged noncitizens. Once those ballots are processed, all sides agree, it would be impossible to separate them.
“Throughout history, federal courts have acted to protect the voting and civil rights of our citizens by enjoining state action that violates the law,” wrote Bumatay, a Trump nominee. “And common sense also tells us that the federal government shouldn’t have to sit on its hands while a state allows the violation of federal law, especially when the integrity of federal elections is at stake.”
The appeals court also raised an issue that could be decisive for the Supreme Court. Under a legal theory known as the “Purcell principle,” the justices have long warned against federal courts weighing in at the last minute to change the rules of an election.
Trump has had a mixed record with emergency election appeals at the Supreme Court. Most notably, the justices in September rejected the president’s attempt to give the US Postal Service extraordinary power to withhold certain mail ballots. But the court sided with the Department of Homeland Security days later, allowing it to continue providing controversial citizenship data to state election officials.
“The federal government continues to press the same arguments, despite repeatedly coming up short,” said Jon Miller, chief program officer at Public Rights Project, which is part of the legal team fighting the Justice Department. “This case has bounced between the appellate and district courts – and every time, the courts have found the Justice Department wasn’t entitled to the relief it was seeking.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
发表回复