2026-06-30T15:25:00-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-tariffs-presidential-power/
华盛顿——美国最高法院于周二公布了2025-2026庭审期的最终裁决，一系列具有重大意义的判决覆盖了特朗普总统多项标志性政策。
最高法院在从出生地公民权到解雇行政部门官员权限等议题上，既为总统带来了胜利，也造成了挫败。整体而言，最高法院的裁决巩固了特朗普对联邦政府大片领域的掌控权，但同时也在其他领域给其议程带来了重大挫折。
这些不利于总统的判决跨越了意识形态界限，最高法院的三名自由派大法官与保守派成员共同组成了多数意见阵营。
以下是最高法院裁决的详细 breakdown：
对特朗普有利的裁决
解雇联邦独立机构官员
最高法院的保守派多数推翻了针对联邦贸易委员会成员的解雇限制，并否决了一项已有91年历史的裁决——该裁决允许国会保护众多独立机构成员免受随意解雇。
这起名为“特朗普诉斯劳特”的案件判决扩大了总统对独立董事会和委员会的权力。此前，国会通过限制解雇理由，使这些机构免受政治压力影响。
罗伯茨为6比3的多数意见撰写了判决意见书，得到了最高法院另外五名保守派大法官的支持。
他写道：“虽然参议院有权决定是否确认总统偏好的工作人选，但国会和法院都不能强迫总统接受他无法共事的人。行使总统权力的下属必须接受总统的解雇。唯有如此，他们才能对总统负责，总统才能对人民负责。”
削弱《选举权法案》
在一项具有里程碑意义的选举权判决中，最高法院于4月否决了包含两个多数黑人选区的路易斯安那州国会选区地图，并削弱了《选举权法案》第2条这一关键条款。
在大法官塞缪尔·阿利托为“路易斯安那州诉卡莱斯”一案撰写的判决意见中，保守派多数裁决称，遵守第2条不能成为路易斯安那州在重划国会选区时使用种族因素的理由。最高法院表示，若要依据第2条成功质疑众议院选区划分，原告必须提供证据，证明“强烈推定”该州故意划分选区以剥夺少数族裔选民选举其青睐候选人的机会。
三名自由派大法官持不同意见，大法官埃琳娜·卡根警告称：“根据最高法院对第2条的新解读，一个州可以系统性削弱少数公民的投票权而不受法律后果。”
最高法院的判决迅速引发连锁反应。南方多个州开始重新调整众议院选区地图，重组由民主党代表的少数族裔占多数的选区。
允许各州实施跨性别运动员禁令
在“西弗吉尼亚州诉B.P.J.”和“利特尔诉赫科克斯”两起案件中，最高法院维持了西弗吉尼亚州和爱达荷州禁止跨性别运动员参加女子体育队的法律。
最高法院以6比3的意识形态分裂投票认定，《第九章》（这部旨在促进体育机会平等的标志性法律）和宪法的平等保护条款均允许各州依据生理性别划分女子体育项目的参赛资格。
大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺为多数意见撰写判决时写道：“宪法和《第九章》并不要求彻底改革美国各地的女子体育。”
三名自由派大法官就平等保护条款条款持不同意见，大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔在法庭上宣读了其异议意见的摘要。
最高法院的这一判决保护了全美二十多个州类似的法律。
终止临时保护身份
上周，最高法院表示特朗普政府可以推进相关工作，剥夺超过35.6万名叙利亚和海地移民的临时保护身份——这一身份允许他们在美国生活和工作。
在两起检验特朗普打击移民计划关键部分的案件中，意见分裂的法院裁定《临时保护身份法》禁止对依据联邦法律提出的索赔进行司法审查。这两起案件分别为“马伦诉多伊”和“特朗普诉米奥”。
纠纷源于国土安全部决定终止超过6000名叙利亚人和35万名海地人的临时保护身份。下级法院法官曾暂缓执行该终止程序，但最高法院推翻了这些裁决，以6比3的判决认定叙利亚和海地移民无权获得法院命令暂缓其临时驱逐保护的终止。
阿利托为多数意见写道：“《临时保护身份法》明确禁止考虑被告方的非宪法诉求。”
取消联合竞选开支限制
周二，最高法院废除了对政治委员会与联邦候选人联合开支的金额限制，在中期选举仅数月之际，进一步解除了对国会竞选资金流入的限制。
大法官们以6比3的意识形态分裂投票认定，所谓的联合政党开支限额违反了第一修正案。“全国共和党参议员委员会诉联邦选举委员会”一案的判决延续了最高法院保守派多数近期的裁决路线，即以限制政治言论为由推翻竞选资金限制。
在卡瓦诺撰写的多数意见中，保守派多数表示，其判决“平等对待所有政党。它将允许所有政党——包括民主党全国委员会、共和党全国委员会以及参众两院竞选委员会，以及其他政党和党派委员会——更自由地参与、更充分地竞争政治进程，并与其候选人更紧密地协调。”
此案由全国共和党参议员委员会、时任参议院候选人JD·万斯以及时任众议员史蒂夫·查博特提起。特朗普政府时期的联邦选举委员会未为该限额辩护，反而辩称其违反第一修正案。
不利于特朗普的裁决
维持出生地公民权原则
在本庭审期最受关注的案件中，最高法院周二推翻了总统旨在推翻出生地公民权的行政命令。出生地公民权原则指几乎所有在美国出生的婴儿自动获得公民身份。
在“特朗普诉芭芭拉”一案中，六名大法官的多数意见认定，总统旨在限制非法入境或临时入境者子女公民身份的行政命令非法。其中五名大法官——首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨、索托马约尔、卡根、艾米·科尼·巴雷特和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊——一致认为特朗普的行政命令违反了宪法第十四修正案。卡瓦诺单独发表意见称，他认为该命令违反了联邦法律。
罗伯茨在多数意见中写道：“无论过去还是现在，公民权都是拥有各项权利的基础——自由参与我们政治共同体的权利。宪法第十四修正案的制定者将这一承诺扩展到了‘这片土地上每一个自由出生的人’。我们今天坚守这一承诺。”
大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、尼尔·戈萨奇和阿利托持不同意见。
否决特朗普的关税政策
2月，最高法院裁定总统无权依据联邦紧急状态权力法对几乎所有国家单方面实施全面关税。
最高法院表示，《国际紧急经济权力法》（简称IEEPA）并未授权总统征收关税。在“学习资源公司诉特朗普”一案中，最高法院以6比3分裂投票，罗伯茨代表法院撰写判决意见。卡瓦诺、阿利托和托马斯持不同意见。
罗伯茨在巴雷特和戈萨奇联署的判决部分写道：“《国际紧急经济权力法》未提及关税或 duties。政府未指出任何国会使用‘监管’一词授权征税的法律。直到现在，也没有任何总统将《国际紧急经济权力法》解读为授予此类权力。我们并未宣称在经济或外交事务上具有特殊能力，我们仅履行宪法第三条赋予我们的有限职责。履行这一职责，我们认定《国际紧急经济权力法》并未授权总统征收关税。”
阻止特朗普解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克
周一，大法官们裁定丽莎·库克可以继续担任美联储理事会成员，同时对特朗普试图解雇她的法律程序继续审理。
在“特朗普诉库克”一案的5比4判决中，最高法院驳回了总统提出的允许其因抵押贷款欺诈指控解雇库克的请求。
罗伯茨为多数意见撰写判决，得到了索托马约尔、卡根、卡瓦诺和杰克逊的联署。
首席大法官写道：“如果接受政府关于特朗普可以解雇库克的论点，实际上会将美联储的‘正当理由保护’转变为随意雇佣——这一解释飞跃与国会制定的法规以及我国免受政治干预的中央银行传统背道而驰。”
允许选举日后计算邮寄选票
同样在周一，最高法院裁定各州可以计算在选举日当天寄出但在选举日后到达的邮寄选票，驳回了共和党对密西西比州晚到选票相关法律的挑战。
大法官们以5比4分裂投票认定，密西西比州的法律与联邦法规并不冲突——联邦法规规定选举日为11月第一个周一后的周二。此案名为“沃森诉共和党全国委员会”。
巴雷特为多数意见撰写判决，维持了密西西比州的法律，得到了罗伯茨和三名自由派大法官的联署。目前有14个州和哥伦比亚特区实施了此类所谓的“宽限期”政策。
巴雷特写道：“制宪者认识到，制定‘适用于国家形势每一种可能变化’的选举法律何其困难。因此，他们并未将选举法律宪法化，而是决定将‘选举自由裁量权’‘交由某处行使’。无需多言，这项权力并未交由本院。选举日法规未提及选票接收问题，我们不能擅自添加国会选择的措辞之外的内容。”
驳回特朗普在E·珍·卡罗尔案中的上诉
大法官们拒绝受理特朗普对作家E·珍·卡罗尔相关判决的上诉。卡罗尔声称特朗普在20世纪90年代对其实施了性侵犯。
联邦陪审团一致认定，证据优势支持卡罗尔的主张，即特朗普在纽约市一家百货商店的一次会面中对其实施了性侵犯。特朗普未出席2023年的民事审判，其律师未传唤证人，随后陪审团裁定向卡罗尔赔偿500万美元。他一再否认卡罗尔的指控。
2024年1月，另一个联邦陪审团认定特朗普对卡罗尔发表了进一步的诽谤言论，裁定其再向卡罗尔支付8300万美元。特朗普在法庭文件中表示，希望最高法院审查这两起案件。
大法官们在驳回特朗普的审查请愿书时，未就案件的法律实质问题发表意见。
How the Supreme Court ruled on Trump’s agenda: Birthright citizenship, tariffs, presidential power
2026-06-30T15:25:00-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-tariffs-presidential-power/
Washington— The Supreme Court issued the final rulings of its 2025-2026 term on Tuesday, capping a consequential series of decisions that addressed some of President Trump’s signature policies.
The court handed the president wins and losses on issues ranging from birthright citizenship to his ability to fire executive branch officials. Taken as a whole, the court’s moves cemented Mr. Trump’s authority over vast parts of the federal government, while delivering significant setbacks to his agenda in other areas.
The decisions against the president crossed ideological lines, with the court’s three liberal justices joining members of its conservative wing to reach majorities.
Here’s how the court’s rulings broke down:
In Trump’s favor
Firing federal independent agency officials
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority struck down removal restrictions for members of the Federal Trade Commission and overruled a 91-year-old decision that allowed Congress to shield members of many independent agencies from being fired at will.
The decision in the case Trump v. Slaughter expands the president’s power over independent boards and commissions, which Congress had insulated from political pressures by limiting the reasons for their removal.
Roberts authored the opinion for the 6 to 3 majority and was joined by the five other members of the court’s conservative wing.
“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” he wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
Weakening the Voting Rights Act
In a landmark voting rights decision, the Supreme Court in April struck down a Louisiana congressional map that consisted of two majority-Black districts and weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2.
In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais, the court’s conservative majority ruled that compliance with Section 2 could not justify Louisiana’s use of race in redrawing its congressional map. The Supreme Court said in order to successfully challenge House lines under Section 2, plaintiffs must put forth evidence showing a “strong inference” that the state intentionally drew districts to deprive minority voters of the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.
The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan warning that “under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power.”
The ramifications from the Supreme Court’s decision were swift. Several states in the South moved to recraft their House maps to reconfigure districts with majority-minority populations, which were represented by Democrats.
Allowing states’ transgender athlete bans
In a pair of cases called West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the Supreme Court upheld laws from West Virginia and Idaho that prohibit transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams.
The high court divided 6 to 3 along ideological lines in finding that both Title IX, the landmark law that promotes equal opportunity in sports, and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause allow states to base eligibility for women and girls’ sports on biological sex.
“The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.
The three liberal justices dissented as to the Equal Protection Clause, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench.
The Supreme Court’s decision protects similar laws in more than two dozen states.
Ending Temporary Protected Status
Last week, the court said the Trump administration can move forward with its efforts to strip more than 356,000 Syrian and Haitian immigrants of temporary protections that have allowed them to live and work in the United States.
In a pair of cases that tested a key aspect of Mr. Trump’s plan to crack down on immigration, a divided court ruled that the TPS law bars judicial review of claims brought under federal law. The cases were called Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot.
The disputes arose out of the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status for more than 6,000 Syrians and 350,000 Haitians. Lower court judges had postponed the terminations of the programs. But the Supreme Court reversed those rulings, saying in a 6-3 decision that immigrants from Syria and Haiti are not entitled to judicial orders postponing the terminations of their temporary deportation protections.
“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims,” Alito wrote for the majority.
Striking down limits on coordinated campaign spending
On Tuesday, the court struck down federal limits on the amount of money a political committee can spend in coordination with federal candidates, further unwinding restrictions on the flow of money into congressional campaigns just months ahead of the midterm elections.
The justices divided 6-3 along ideological lines in finding that the caps on what are called coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment. The decision in NRSC v. FEC joins a line of recent rulings from the court’s conservative majority that have invalidated campaign finance limits on the grounds that they restrict political speech.
In an opinion authored by Kavanaugh, the conservative majority said its decision “treats all political parties equally. It will allow all political parties — including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees — to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates.”
The case was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and then-Senate candidate JD Vance, as well as then-Rep. Steve Chabot. The Federal Election Commission under Mr. Trump’s administration declined to defend the caps and argued that they violate the First Amendment.
Against Trump
Upholding birthright citizenship
In perhaps the highest-profile case of the term, the court on Tuesday invalidated the president’s executive order that sought to overturn birthright citizenship, the principle that nearly all babies born in the U.S. are automatically citizens.
In Trump v. Barbara, a majority of six justices said the president’s order, which would have limited citizenship for babies of those in the country illegally or temporarily, was unlawful. Five of the justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Sotomayor, Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed that Mr. Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Kavanaugh wrote separately to say he believes the order violates federal law.
“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.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Alito dissented.
Striking down Trump’s tariffs
In February, the court ruled the president does not have the authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every country under a federal emergency powers law.
The high court said that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court divided 6-3 in the case known as Learning Resources v. Trump, with Roberts delivering the opinion for the court. Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas dissented.
“IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power,” Roberts wrote in a portion of the decision joined by Barrett and Gorsuch. “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
Firing of the Fed’s Lisa Cook
On Monday, the justices allowed Lisa Cook to continue in her post as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors while legal proceedings over Mr. Trump’s attempt to fire her continue.
In a 5 to 4 decision in Trump v. Cook, the high court rejected the president’s bid to allow him to oust Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud.
Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson.
To accept the government’s arguments that Mr. Trump can fire Cook “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment — an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,” the chief justice wrote.
Counting mail ballots after Election Day
Also on Monday, the court ruled that states can count mail ballots that are cast by Election Day but arrive later, rejecting a GOP challenge to Mississippi’s law for late-arriving ballots.
The justices split 5 to 4 in finding that Mississippi’s measure does not conflict with federal statutes that set Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in certain years. The case was known as Watson v. Republican National Committee.
Barrett authored the majority opinion that upheld Mississippi’s law, joined by Roberts and the three liberal justices. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have these so-called grace periods in place.
“The Framers recognized the difficulty of crafting election laws ‘applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country.’ So instead of constitutionalizing election law, they decided that ‘a discretionary power over elections’ needed to be lodged ‘somewhere,’” Barrett wrote. “Suffice it to say, that power was not lodged in this Court. The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”
Rejecting Trump’s appeal in E. Jean Carroll case
The justices declined to take up Mr. Trump’s appeal of verdicts in cases brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll, who claimed Mr. Trump sexually abused her in the 1990s.
A unanimous federal jury found that a preponderance of evidence supported Carroll’s claim that Mr. Trump sexually abused her during an encounter in a New York City department store. Mr. Trump did not attend the 2023 civil trial, and his attorneys called no witnesses before the jury awarded Carroll $5 million. He has repeatedly denied Carroll’s allegations.
A separate federal jury in January 2024 found him liable for making further defamatory statements against Carroll. That jury awarded her another $83 million. Mr. Trump indicated in court filings he wanted Supreme Court review of both cases.
The justices did not address the legal merits of the case when denying Mr. Trump’s petition to review the matter.