2026年6月30日 / 美国东部时间上午11:26 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯——美国最高法院周二驳回了特朗普总统旨在终止出生公民权的行政命令，再次确认了已有百余年历史的共识：几乎所有在美国出生的人都拥有公民身份。
在“特朗普诉芭芭拉”案的分歧裁决中，最高法院以6票对3票认定特朗普的政策非法。五名大法官——首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨以及索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根、艾米·科尼·巴雷特和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官——一致认为特朗普的行政命令违反了宪法第十四修正案。布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官单独发表意见称，他认为该命令违反了联邦法律。
克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官、塞缪尔·阿利托大法官和尼尔·戈萨奇大法官表示反对。
此次裁决意味着最高法院现已推翻特朗普第二任期内的第二项标志性政策，此前该院已于今年2月裁定推翻其多项关税措施。特朗普在重返白宫的首日签署了这项旨在限制出生公民权的指令，作为其全面打击移民举措的一部分。
“无论过去还是现在，公民权都意味着拥有权利的资格——自由参与我们的政治共同体。第十四修正案的制定者将这一承诺延伸至‘这片土地上每一个自由出生的人’，”罗伯茨在多数意见中写道，“我们今日坚守这一承诺。”
托马斯与戈萨奇辩称，多数意见中关于美国公民权规则的历史描述“不符合历史事实”。
“最高法院今日采取了非同寻常的举措，以表面违宪为由驳回了总统排除外国临时访客和非法移民子女公民身份的行政命令，”他写道，“在此过程中，最高法院为第十四修正案的可悲历史又添一笔。该修正案的设计初衷和原本意图是为获得解放的黑人争取平等权利，但如今却被重新用于重建时期国会从未支持过的政治目的。”
特朗普的行政命令
作为特朗普移民政策的基石，这项行政命令旨在拒绝父母为非法入境者或临时居留者的婴儿自动获得美国公民身份。该命令将颠覆长期以来对宪法公民条款的解释——即几乎所有在美国出生的人都可获得公民身份的既定原则。
但该指令从未生效，因为所有审理此案的联邦法院都阻止了其执行。
宪法第十四修正案的公民条款规定：“凡在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖的人，均为合众国及所居住州的公民。”国会先后于1940年通过《国籍法》、1952年通过《移民与国籍法》，将这一条款纳入联邦移民法。
最高法院曾在1898年的一起标志性案件中审议该条款的含义，确认了出生即获得公民身份的规则，仅存在少数例外：外国外交官、占领军成员和北美原住民部落成员的子女。国会于1924年通过立法，授予所有在美国出生的北美原住民公民身份。
特朗普的行政命令试图改变美国公民身份的长期定义。总统及其政府辩称，无限制的出生公民权是非法移民和生育旅游的强大诱因。他们称，自20世纪中期以来，人们对公民条款的解读一直存在误读。
尽管政府表示特朗普的措施仅具有前瞻性效力，但影响将极为深远。根据移民政策研究所和宾夕法尼亚州立大学人口研究所的数据，该行政命令每年将导致约25万名在美国出生的婴儿被剥夺公民身份。
此案对特朗普意义重大，他于4月出席了口头辩论，成为现代历史上首位在任期间前往最高法院旁听此类程序的总统。尽管如此，总统在过去几个月的社交媒体帖子中仍表示，他认为自己可能无法在最高法院胜诉。
特朗普的行政命令很快在全国各法院遭到法律挑战。新罕布什尔州、华盛顿州、马萨诸塞州和马里兰州的法官迅速在全国范围内阻止了该政策的执行。
特朗普政府就这些裁决提起紧急上诉，最终于去年将此案提交至最高法院。但当时的案件涉及下级法院裁决的范围，即全国范围禁令，而非特朗普限制出生公民权举措的合法性。
在最高法院限制下级法院发布全国范围禁令的权力后，新罕布什尔州又提起了另一项诉讼，代表所有受出生公民权政策影响的儿童。正是这起案件被提交至最高法院，不过此次大法官们审议的是该命令是否违反联邦法律或宪法。
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump’s order
June 30, 2026 / 11:26 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, reaffirming the more than 100-year-old understanding that nearly all of those born in the United States are citizens.
In a divided decision in the case Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court split 6-3 in finding that Mr. Trump’s policy is unlawful. Five of the justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed that Mr. Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to say he believes the order violates federal law.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
With the decision, the Supreme Court has now invalidated a second of Mr. Trump’s signature initiatives from his second term, joining its ruling striking down many of his tariffs in February. The president signed his directive aiming to restrict birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House as part of a sweeping crackdown on immigration.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We keep that promise today.”
Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, argued that the majority’s account of the history of the rule for American citizenship “is not historically accurate.”
“The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” he wrote. “In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
Trump’s order
A cornerstone of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda, his executive order sought to deny automatic American citizenship to babies born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily. The order would have upended the long-held interpretation of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause as granting citizenship to almost all people born in the U.S.
But the directive never took effect, since it was blocked by every federal court that examined it.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Congress codified that language in federal immigration law, first in 1940 through the Nationality Act, and again in 1952 in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Supreme Court considered the meaning of the clause in a landmark case in 1898 and affirmed the rule of citizenship by birth, with rare exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats, occupying armies and members of Native American tribes. Congress in 1924 enacted legislation conferring citizenship on all Native Americans born in the U.S.
Mr. Trump’s executive order sought to change the long-held definition of who is an American. The president and his administration argued that unrestricted birthright citizenship has served as a powerful incentive for illegal immigration and birth tourism. They said the Citizenship Clause has been misread since the mid-20th century.
While the administration said Mr. Trump’s measure would have applied only prospectively, the effects would have been far-reaching. An estimated 250,000 babies born in the U.S. would be denied citizenship each year under the executive order, according to the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute.
In a sign of the case’s importance to Mr. Trump, he attended the oral arguments in April, becoming the first sitting president in modern history to view such proceedings at the high court. Still, the president indicated in social media posts across the past few months that he believed he may not prevail before the Supreme Court.
Mr. Trump’s executive order was met almost immediately with legal challenges in courts across the country. Judges in New Hampshire, Washington, Massachusetts and Maryland quickly blocked enforcement of the policy nationwide.
The Trump administration pursued emergency appeals of those decisions, eventually landing the issue before the Supreme Court last year. But those cases involved the scope of the lower court orders, known as nationwide injunctions, and not the legality of Mr. Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship.
After the high court curbed lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, another challenge was filed in New Hampshire on behalf of all children who would be covered by the birthright citizenship policy. It was that case that landed before the high court, though in this instance, the justices weighed whether it violated federal law or the Constitution.