2026-06-30T20:19:42.584Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-rebukes-trump-on-birthright-citizenship-barely
保守派最高法院周二对总统唐纳德·特朗普的移民议程造成重大打击，裁定其政府不得通过行政命令终止每年数十万在美国本土出生婴儿的出生权公民身份。
尽管并不出人意料，但这项裁决对于这位以终止“生育旅游”为部分竞选连任口号、且其政府一直以打击非法和合法移民为核心举措的总统而言，仍是一次巨大失利。然而，此次裁决并未像外界广泛预测那样彻底否决特朗普的相关举措。
多名保守派大法官并未附和多数意见——这一分歧已被特朗普借机利用。
这场6票对3票的裁决，可以说是特朗普主导的最高法院任期内最受期待的一场判决。在此期间，这位总统在多个高调案件中遭遇失利，包括关税相关案件以及美联储独立性相关案件，但也取得了若干显著胜利。
以下是最高法院关于出生权公民身份这一历史性裁决的核心要点。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨采用了颇具标志性的处理方式，将这个在华盛顿引发激烈争议一年多的复杂法律问题，简化为一份篇幅仅26页的相对直白的判决书。
这份判决书大量引用历史资料——这又是罗伯茨经典的处理手法——首席大法官表示，第十四修正案的文本根本无法支持建国者意图将出生权公民身份限定为公民或打算永久定居美国的人群。
“如果国会曾打算将美国公民身份限定为在美国有住所者的子女，公民条款的简洁措辞中丝毫没有体现这一意图，”首席大法官写道，“行政命令中频繁出现的‘母亲’‘父亲’‘合法’‘临时’等词汇，在该条款中均未出现。原因很简单：这些无关紧要。”
从这个角度来看，罗伯茨的推理契合了保守派大法官常宣称的司法原则：解读书面文字，而非试图解读可能存在多种解读空间的立法意图。
罗伯茨还大量援引了最高法院1898年具有里程碑意义的“美国诉黄锦案”（US v. Wong Kim Ark）判决，当时最高法院据此解读第十四修正案，赋予中国侨民之子公民身份。
“最高法院在黄锦案中的裁决很简单：公民条款吸纳了普通法原则，授予几乎所有在美国出生的儿童公民身份，”罗伯茨写道，“因此不足为奇的是，自那以来的128年里，我们 repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power. We see no reason to depart from that view today.”
如果罗伯茨曾希望以几乎一致的法院立场传递某种信号，那么他并未如愿。
最终，仅有另一名保守派大法官艾米·康尼·巴雷特完全附和了他的意见。他们与法院的三位自由派大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊站在一起。
三名持不同意见的保守派大法官共同撰写了超过130页的意见书，表达他们对多数意见的不满。
作为最高法院资历最深的保守派大法官之一，塞缪尔·阿利托在其单独异议的开篇直截了当地指出：“这是本院历史上最重要的裁决之一，在我看来，最高法院犯下了严重错误。”
他随后辩称，第十四修正案并未将公民身份保障仅赋予仅仅出生在美国领土上的人，并称其同僚的裁决“保留了强大的激励因素”，促使非公民非法进入并留在美国。
克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官撰写了一份近100页的异议意见书，仅得到戈萨奇大法官的附和。他同样抨击了多数派的裁决，称其实际上“贬低”了第十四修正案建国者所理解的公民身份。
“我不确定今天的裁决能否经受住时间的考验，”他写道。
托马斯写道，多数派“重新解读了第十四修正案，以保护其自身偏好的权利”，并称其裁决与修正案文本不符，他认为修正案的唯一意图是确保前奴隶及其子女拥有公民身份。
但正是这一观点遭到了凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官的强烈反驳，她批评托马斯背离了他通常“长期支持‘色盲宪法’”的立场。对色盲宪法的支持是当前保守派多数派的核心主题，也影响了一项又一项判决。
杰克逊辩称，正是托马斯本人“重新解读”了第十四修正案，她写道，托马斯、特朗普政府以及“少数修正主义评论员”的观点提供了一种“另类叙事”，这种叙事“将非裔美国人与移民对立起来，而推动第十四修正案的倡导者从未有过此类意图”。
从实际层面而言，这项裁决对特朗普不利。但保守派内部罕见的分歧表明，此案的接近程度远超许多人的预测。
布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官是这场分歧的关键人物。
这位特朗普提名的第二位最高法院大法官发表了一份附和裁决结果，但不同意宪法禁止特朗普行政令的意见书。卡瓦诺本应依据1952年颁布的一项联邦法律判决特朗普败诉。
该法律的措辞与第十四修正案完全一致，但当时的议员们普遍认为，任何在美国本土出生的人都应成为公民。卡瓦诺会得出结论，第十四修正案的建国者对相同措辞的理解，与近一个世纪后的国会议员不同。
按照卡瓦诺的思路，本届总统或未来总统可以尝试说服国会通过立法限制出生权公民身份。
“在我看来，该行政命令并未违反第十四修正案，”卡瓦诺在其部分异议中写道。
卡瓦诺写道，国会可以尝试“制定新法案，为非法或临时留在美国的外国公民所生子女设立出生权公民身份的例外情形”。
卡瓦诺的部分异议未获得任何其他大法官的附和。
特朗普对该裁决的回应是，建议国会可以通过立法终止出生权公民身份。但这位总统或其法律顾问可能解读错了法院实际作出的裁决。
最高法院的意见清晰明确：在美国出生的儿童，即使父母非法留在美国，根据第十四修正案也应享有公民身份。
“这些儿童因此受美国司法管辖，”罗伯茨谈及非法或临时留在美国的父母所生的子女时表示，“他们满足公民条款的两个要素：他们‘出生……在美国境内’，并且‘受其司法管辖’。”
“根据宪法，”罗伯茨写道，“他们出生时即为公民。”
这场宪法之争围绕第十四修正案公民条款的含义展开，该条款规定“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”。特朗普的律师团队将焦点放在该条款的后半部分：“受其司法管辖”。他们辩称，该条款将许多非法和合法留美的移民排除在外。
https://www.cnn.com/
希夫斥责罗伯茨，支持法院改革
2:58 • 来源：CNN
希夫斥责罗伯茨，支持法院改革
2:58
特朗普及其盟友称，该条款从未打算自动赋予外国国民其子女公民身份。他们表示，建国者写入“受其司法管辖”时，意味着出生权公民身份将仅延伸至对美国“直接且即刻效忠”的人群。美国政府称，确立这种效忠的一个明确方式是“定居”在美国，而非仅仅过境。
多数派迅速驳回了这一论点。
“如果国会打算将公民身份取决于个人的住所——这一问题‘有时极难判定’——那么人们有理由期待至少会有相关讨论，”罗伯茨写道，“然而，‘住所’一词在民权法案相关条款的讨论中仅出现两次。而且仅在一场关于公民条款的辩论演讲中出现过一次——作为解释根据宪法，州公民身份与国家公民身份有何区别的一部分。”
出生权公民身份的裁决落定于最高法院任期的最后一天——这对于特朗普重新掌权以来与司法部门紧张的关系而言，颇具讽刺意味地画上了句点。考虑到特朗普今年以来对最高法院的激烈抨击，罗伯茨选择在任期结束时，在这位总统最优先的议程之一上使其遭遇重大失利，这一点尤为引人注目。
就在该裁决作出的前一天，法院限制了特朗普解雇美联储理事的权力，尽管该裁决仍为政府未来继续针对美联储的行动留下了充足空间。在今年特朗普遭遇的最重大失利中，最高法院于2月驳回了总统征收全球紧急关税的权力。
但这位总统也取得了不少重大胜利——即便其中一些与特朗普本人并非直接相关。
在胜诉的案件中，最高法院大幅扩大了总统解雇独立机构负责人的权力，并允许政府终止为超过一百万合法留在美国、以躲避本国冲突和自然灾害的人士提供的临时人道主义救济。
特朗普将最高法院关于解雇权的裁决称为“有史以来关于总统权力的最重要裁决之一”。
最高法院周二的另一项重大裁决，允许各州禁止跨性别运动员参加女子运动队，虽未直接影响特朗普政府，但 nonetheless very much in line with his agenda and rhetoric.
这些裁决的主线是，尽管最高法院持续将法律推向右翼，但其是在符合自身议程的案件中推进——未必符合唐纳德·特朗普的议程。
Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Trump on birthright citizenship
2026-06-30T20:19:42.584Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-rebukes-trump-on-birthright-citizenship-barely
The conservative Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda Tuesday, ruling that his administration could not use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for hundreds of thousands of babies born on US soil every year.
Though not unexpected, the decision is a huge loss for a president who ran for a second White House term in part on ending “birth tourism” and whose administration has been defined by a push to crackdown on illegal and legal immigration. And yet, the decision was not as fulsome a rejection of Trump’s effort as had been widely predicted.
Several conservatives broke from the majority — a division that Trump has already sought to exploit.
The 6-3 decision was arguably the most anticipated of a Trump-heavy Supreme Court term in which the president has suffered a number of high-profile losses, including on tariffs and independence at the Federal Reserve — but also a number of notable wins.
Here are the key takeaways from the court’s historic decision on birthright citizenship.
In something of a trademark maneuver, Chief Justice John Roberts pared down a complicated legal issue that has roiled Washington for more than a year into a relatively straightforward, 26-page opinion.
Full of references to history — another classic Roberts approach — the chief said that the text of the 14th Amendment simply didn’t support the idea that the framers intended to limit birthright citizenship to citizens or people who intended to live in the country permanently.
“If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the citizenship clause conveyed that design,” the chief justice wrote. “Words appearing frequently in the executive order — ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘lawful,’ ‘temporary’ — are absent from the clause. For a simple reason: they did not matter.”
In that sense, Roberts’ reasoning tracked with what conservative justices often say is their approach to the law: reading the words on the page, rather than trying to glean intent that can be open to interpretation.
Roberts also leaned heavily on a landmark 1898 decision from the Supreme Court, US v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the justices then read the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to the son of Chinese nationals.
“What the Court held in Wong Kim Ark was simple: the Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States,” Roberts wrote. “Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power. We see no reason to depart from that view today.”
If Roberts was hoping to send a message with a mostly united court, he didn’t get to do so.
In the end, only one other conservative justice — Amy Coney Barrett — joined his opinion in full. They were joined by the court’s three liberals, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The three conservative justices who dissented from the court’s ruling together wrote more than 130 pages to express their frustration with the majority.
Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s most senior conservatives, got right to the point as he opened his solo dissent: “This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the court, and in my judgment, the court has made a serious mistake.”
He went on to argue that the 14th Amendment does not extend the guarantee of citizenship to anyone merely born on American soil and that his colleagues’ decision “preserves a powerful incentive” for noncitizens to enter and stay in the US unlawfully.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a nearly 100-page dissent joined only by Gorsuch, also skewered the court’s majority over its decision, writing that it effectively “devalues” citizenship as it was understood by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time,” he wrote.
Thomas wrote that the majority had “repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights” and that its decision could not be squared with the text of the amendment, which he believed was solely intended to ensure former slaves and their children would have citizenship.
But it was that point that drew strong pushback from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who criticized Thomas over what she saw as a notable shift in his usual “longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution.” The embrace of a colorblind Constitution has been a central theme of the current conservative majority, and it has influenced decision after decision.
Jackson contended that it was Thomas who had “repurposed” the 14th Amendment, writing that his view, that of the Trump administration and a “handful of revisionist commentators” offered an “alternative account” that “pitches Black Americans against immigrants when the advocates who promoted the Fourteenth Amendment did no such thing.”
In practical terms, the decision was a loss for Trump. But the unusual split among conservatives suggested that the case was much closer than many had predicted it would be.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was key to that split.
Trump’s second nominee to the high court filed an opinion that agreed with the outcome but disagreed that the Constitution barred Trump’s order. Instead, Kavanaugh would have let Trump lose on a federal law enacted in 1952.
That law has identical language to the 14th Amendment, but it was enacted with a general understanding by lawmakers at that time that anyone born on US soil was a citizen. Kavanaugh would have concluded that the framers of the 14th Amendment had a different understanding of the same language than members of Congress did nearly a century later.
Under Kavanaugh’s approach, this president — or a future one — could try to convince Congress to limit birthright citizenship by passing a law.
“In my view, the executive order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment,” Kavanaugh wrote in his partial dissent.
Congress could, Kavanaugh wrote, try to “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
Kavanaugh’s partial dissent was not joined by any other justice.
Trump reacted to the decision by suggesting that Congress could pass a law to end birthright citizenship. But the president — or his attorneys — may have been reading a different decision than the one the court actually issued.
The court’s opinion was clear: Children born in the country, even to parents here illegally, are citizens under the 14th Amendment.
“Those children are thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Roberts said of children born to people in the country unlawfully or temporarily. “They satisfy both elements of the citizenship clause: they are ‘born … in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
“Under the Constitution,” Roberts wrote, “they are citizens at birth.”
The constitutional fight centered around the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump’s attorneys trained their focus on the second part of that clause: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That line, they argued, excludes many immigrants in the country illegally and legally.
https://www.cnn.com/
Schiff blasts Roberts, backs court reform
2:58 • Source: CNN
Schiff blasts Roberts, backs court reform
2:58
Trump and his allies say the language was never intended to automatically entitle foreign nationals to citizenship for their children. When the framers included the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they say, that meant that birthright citizenship would be extended to people who have a “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States. One clear way to establish that allegiance, the government said, is to be “domiciled” in the country and not just passing through.
The majority made quick work of that argument.
“If Congress intended to hinge citizenship on each individual’s domicile — a question that ‘is sometimes a matter of great difficulty to decide’ — it is reasonable to expect there would have been at least some discussion of the topic,” Roberts wrote. “Yet the word ‘domicile’ appears just twice in the discussion of the relevant provision of the Civil Rights Act. And it appears in only one speech from the Citizenship Clause debates — as part of an explanation of why state citizenship is distinct from national citizenship under the Constitution.”
The birthright citizenship decision landed on the final day of a Supreme Court term — a poignant bookend in the president’s fraught relationship with the judiciary since returning to power. It is notable, given the vitriol Trump has leveled against the court this year, that Roberts chose to close out the term by handing the president a huge loss on one of his top priorities.
The decision came a day after the court limited Trump’s power to fire a Federal Reserve governor, although that decision will give the administration plenty of room to continue its campaign against the Fed in the future. In perhaps the most significant Trump loss this year, the court in February shut down the president’s ability to levy global emergency tariffs.
But the president also scored plenty of significant victories — even if some of them were Trump adjacent.
In the win column, the Supreme Court vastly expanded the president’s power to fire the leaders of independent agencies and it allowed the administration to end temporary humanitarian relief for potentially more than a million people who have been living in the US legally to escape conflict and natural disaster in their home countries.
Trump framed the Supreme Court’s decision on firings as “one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.”
The court’s other major decision Tuesday, allowing states to ban trans athletes from competing on girls’ sports teams, didn’t have a direct impact on the president’s administration, but it was nevertheless very much in line with his agenda and rhetoric.
The throughline of those decisions is that while the Supreme Court continues to move the law to the right, it is doing so in cases that align with its own agenda — not necessarily Donald Trump’s.
