2026-06-13T16:00:08.075Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/13/politics/supreme-court-trump-cases-voting-rights-tariffs
- 最高法院即将就出生公民权、邮寄选票计票以及跨性别者体育禁令等议题发布重大判决。
- CNN最高法院记者约翰·弗里策解释了，在即将到来的选举季中，大法官们为何公开表达对法院被视为政治机构的担忧。
- 两位年近八旬的保守派大法官正面临质疑：他们是否会在民主党可能掌控参议院之前退休。
本文由AI生成摘要，并经CNN编辑审核。
本篇报道曾刊登于CNN的《重要事项》新闻简报。如需免费订阅并将其发送至您的收件箱，请点击此处注册。
晚春时节，美国最高法院正准备集中发布一系列判决。大法官们已经度过了一个非同寻常的开庭期。他们推翻了唐纳德·特朗普总统的多项关税政策，但同时也削弱了《选举权法案》，并为共和党在特朗普挑起的选区重划争端中占据了优势。
我就即将到来的案件、法庭上的焦虑情绪，以及公众日益将法院视为政治机构而非美国正义最终仲裁者的现象，采访了CNN最高法院记者约翰·弗里策。以下是经过编辑以控制篇幅和理顺逻辑的访谈内容。
沃尔夫： 对于最高法院记者来说，现在正是忙碌时刻。我们预计未来一个月将有多项重大判决发布。你最关注哪些重大事件？
弗里策： 这是最高法院记者一年中最好的时节，所有重大案件都会在此时发布判决。
今年的一大主题和华盛顿的其他事件一样，就是唐纳德·特朗普。
我们都知道特朗普去年再次入主白宫，但由于最高法院的日程安排……我们现在看到的是他上任头几个月引发的诸多争议——比如出生公民权案件和解雇独立官员的案件。
去年全年发生的一些争议和诉讼，如今终于进入了最高法院的实质性审理日程。除了出生公民权案件，还有一些非常有趣的移民案件，以及一些引人关注的选举案件，而与特朗普无关的还有一起重大的跨性别者体育案件。
法院既让特朗普胜诉（选区重划案）也让他受挫（关税案）
沃尔夫： 在已经作出判决的两起重大案件中，尽管案件中并未提及特朗普的名字，但最高法院推翻了《选举权法案》的大部分内容，让特朗普取得了胜利；但在关税案中他遭遇了重大失败。你认为他如何看待这个法院？
弗里策： 特朗普的身影贯穿了整个待审案件清单，这在很大程度上是因为他对关税案判决的反应极为反常。他几乎立刻就表示，那些作出不利于他的判决的大法官让他们的家族蒙羞。我们经常听到总统抱怨最高法院的判决，但从未有人用过这样的措辞。
如果你和大法官们交谈，他们会说他们不在乎这些，他们的职责就是不关心政治部门的态度。但当一位总统利用其影响力抨击法院的一项不合意判决时，这必然会对他们造成影响。
沃尔夫： 但特朗普肯定很满意选区重划案的判决，该判决让共和党在他挑起的选区重划争端中占得先机。
弗里策： 该案最值得关注的是判决时机，因为这起限制《选举权法案》适用范围的选区重划案是从上一个开庭期推迟下来的。这是一起非常重要的案件，公众很难理解。但尤其是考虑到判决时机，这让法院遭到了大量批评，称其从政治视角审理案件。
甚至在大法官内部，也有不少人对政治化这个问题感到焦虑。这在选举案件中总是会被提及。我们看到，自由派大法官、也是资历最浅的大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊公开表达了担忧，认为判决的时机和处理方式可能会被视为带有政治色彩。她并没有说法院的判决是出于政治动机，但她对这种政治观感感到担忧。随后，塞缪尔·阿利托大法官对这种批评作出了回应，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨也公开谈及了这一问题。
法院方面会表示，关税案就是他们不带有政治倾向的例证——他们会根据具体案件支持或反对特朗普。
沃尔夫： 他们还以一种可以说会帮助阿拉巴马州共和党人的方式介入了案件，同时拒绝以帮助弗吉尼亚州民主党人的方式介入。因此整体效果是帮助了共和党。
弗里策： 法院辩称判决并非出于政治考量，因为案件各不相同。弗吉尼亚州的案件并不是特别有力，我认为即使是自由派评论员也会承认这一点。
当然，加州赢了一起案件，所以也有帮助到民主党的案件。但你说得没错，到目前为止他们已经审理了大约六起案件，其中大多数判决都对共和党有利。
沃尔夫： 接下来还有一起可能影响即将到来的选举的判决，涉及邮寄选票的计票方式和时间。这一问题目前在加利福尼亚州正引发热议。人们预计最高法院的判决会影响即将到来的选举吗？
弗里策： 人们预计这会影响大选，但影响程度尚有争议。有14个州的法律允许选票在选举日当天加盖邮戳，但之后寄达仍可被计入有效票——具体时限因州而异。这种情况涉及的选票数量相对较少，而且接收这类选票的州，至少在国会控制权的争夺上，并非今年选举的关键摇摆州。当然，无论最高法院作出何种判决，都会影响未来的选举。
另一项相关案件涉及竞选资金。有一起案件涉及政党委员会与候选人之间的协调支出，该法律对协调支出的金额设置了限制，这也催生了超级政治行动委员会，因为超级PAC不与候选人协调，但可以接受无限额捐款。最高法院在口头辩论中也暗示，它将支持共和党立场。因此，在这个重要的选举年，将有两起重大选举案件等待判决，而法院可能会作出有利于共和党立场的裁决。
沃尔夫： 我们回过头来说出生公民权案。口头辩论显示，大法官们对政府限制出生公民权的立场持怀疑态度。他们会找到折中方案，还是会直接否决白宫的要求？
弗里策： 我认为不会有折中方案。这起案件有趣的地方在于，即使是共和党评论员也认为，这对总统来说是一起非常棘手的案件，但这一点在辩论中并未真正体现出来。他们对该案进行了非常全面和公正的审理，这让一些人感到意外，因为这显然已经大大突破了法律的边界。
从口头辩论来看，特朗普可能会败诉，但这一点并不像预想的那么明确，这一点很有意思。不过目前看来，特朗普似乎还是会败诉。可能有两种判决方式。最高法院可以作出重大判决，基于宪法理由对此案作出裁决，这将一劳永逸地解决这个问题。或者最高法院可以采取更谨慎的方式，基于法律条文作出判决，这一解决方案的永久性较弱，因为国会日后可以修改相关法律。如果可以选择的话，最高法院通常倾向于基于法律条文作出判决，所以我不一定会将更狭义的判决解读为特朗普的重大胜利。
沃尔夫： 你为CNN订阅用户制作了一份所有这些案件的追踪清单，并将它们分为不同类别，其中一类是总统权力。这些案件涉及总统解雇美联储和联邦贸易委员会官员的权力。人们预计最高法院会允许他解雇理论上受法律保护的官员，还是会限制他的这一权力？
弗里策： 我认为他们两方面都会有所涉及。这里有两起案件。一起涉及联邦贸易委员会的丽贝卡·凯利·斯劳特专员，该案探讨的是总统是否可以仅仅因为不同意某项政策，就随意解雇这些独立机构的官员。现有法律和1930年代的最高法院先例表面上保护这些机构不受总统干预。根据口头辩论——尽管这并非完美的预测指标——最高法院似乎会支持特朗普，赋予他更大的权力来解雇和罢免这些独立机构的负责人。
可能的例外是涉及美联储的莉萨·库克案。在该案中，特朗普辩称他有正当理由，即指控库克在抵押贷款文件方面存在不当行为。库克否认有任何不当行为，但该案的核心问题是，如果特朗普怀疑有正当理由解雇某人，他需要遵循何种程序。
从大局来看，最高法院在多份判决中已经表明，基于历史和美联储通过利率管理经济的角色，他们对美联储的看法有所不同。因此在这起案件中，我认为特朗普的胜算要小得多。
沃尔夫： 社会议题案件——涉及跨性别者参与青少年体育和枪支的案件——的走向会是怎样的？
弗里策： 跨性别者体育禁令案是一起非常有趣的案件。特朗普政府参与了该案，支持爱达荷州和西弗吉尼亚州实施这类禁令的州。但全美大约有一半的州都颁布了禁令，禁止跨性别女孩参加女子运动队。不仅是在口头辩论中——这通常是我们预测案件走向的主要依据——从他们过往的判例来看，最高法院对推翻这些州法律的努力持非常怀疑的态度。
过去两年里，LGBTQ群体在最高法院的紧急审理程序中遭遇了相当多的重大失利。上一个开庭期有一起涉及田纳西州法律和跨性别者医疗保健的重大案件，田纳西州颁布了相关禁令，最高法院维持了该禁令，辩称各州有权作出此类决定。从过往判决和口头辩论来看，我认为LGBTQ群体在这起案件中面临着非常艰难的 uphill battle（译者注：原意为爬坡作战，此处译为“艰难的取胜之路”）。
弗里策： 枪支案件。有好几起，但我认为最受关注的一起涉及一名经常吸食大麻的男子，联邦法律规定经常吸食毒品的人不得持有武器。考虑到过去10年美国各州关于大麻的法律发生了变化，这是一个真正的现实问题。
大法官们对这项法律的适用范围感到担忧，而过去几个开庭期的最高法院一直相当支持第二修正案。因此，最高法院很可能会以某种方式限制这项法律的适用范围。这又是一起特朗普政府胜算不大的案件。有趣的是，政府正在为这项联邦法律辩护，而这与美国步枪协会的立场相悖。
沃尔夫： 关于是否会有大法官退休的传言是怎么回事？现在几乎是确保能让保守派接任大法官席位的最后时机了。如果民主党在中期选举中掌控参议院，他们目前不太可能批准任何共和党提名人选。这会不会是保守派的露丝·巴德·金斯伯格时刻？
弗里策： 我们当然在关注塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯，两位都是年近八旬的保守派大法官。阿利托76岁，托马斯本月晚些时候就将年满78岁。以最高法院的标准来看，他们相对年轻，健康状况都很好，在法庭上都非常投入，积极撰写判决意见。有报道称他们不打算退休，但正如你所知，政治时机的契合并不常有。我们所有人都会在最后几天判决发布后，密切关注法院的任何公告。
沃尔夫： 托马斯的情况很有意思，他接替的并非保守派大法官，而是瑟古德·马歇尔——瑟古德·马歇尔在健康状况不佳时退休，当时可能没料到比尔·克林顿会赢得下一次选举。在托马斯看来，他会尽力为保守派保住这个席位吗？还是说这对他来说根本不是一个需要考虑的因素？
弗里策： 我认为所有大法官在退休时，都会考虑到提名他们的总统所在的政党。托马斯今年已经成为美国历史上任职时间第二长的大法官。再过两年，他将成为任职时间最长的大法官。很多人认为托马斯会为了创下这项纪录而继续留任。
（1939年获得任命、1975年中风后退休的威廉·道格拉斯大法官目前保持着任职时间最长的纪录。）
大法官们更频繁地公开露面，出书并遭到各方批评
沃尔夫： 过去几年报道最高法院的工作有什么变化？
弗里策： 我们确实看到大法官们更频繁地公开露面，这在很大程度上是因为他们中的很多人都在出书。过去几年里，有好几位大法官外出宣传他们的新书，其中一些活动为他们提供了谈论幕后情况的机会，尽管我们无法真正窥见全貌，但有时会在他们的发言中发现一些细微的线索。
杰克逊大法官最近在华盛顿的发言不同寻常，因为我们通常不会看到他们专门谈论案件并解释他们的判决意见。他们通常会说，判决意见本身就说明了问题，他们撰写的内容本身就代表了立场。而她继续阐述自己为何认为法院在某起选区重划案中作出了错误判决，坦率地说，这相当引人注目。我认为这反映了一种有点不寻常的紧张关系。约翰·罗伯茨几周前在宾夕法尼亚州赫尔希也发表了类似言论，称他认为人们误解了我们并非政治参与者，并就此发表了很长时间的看法。我不是说这是对杰克逊的回应，我也不知道是不是。但确实存在很多紧张情绪。
左派对选区重划案非常愤怒，而特朗普也准备趁机发难，从他对关税案的反应中就能明显看出这一点。大法官们正从四面八方听到批评声。
Angst at the Supreme Court before a rush of decisions
2026-06-13T16:00:08.075Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/13/politics/supreme-court-trump-cases-voting-rights-tariffs
- The Supreme Court is about to release major decisions on birthright citizenship, mail-in ballot counting and transgender sports bans.
- CNN Supreme Court reporter John Fritze explains how justices are publicly airing concerns about appearing political amid upcoming elections.
- Two conservative justices in their late 70s face questions about whether they will retire before potential Democratic Senate control.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
Late spring means the Supreme Court is preparing to unleash decisions. Justices have already had a remarkable term. They invalidated much of President Donald Trump’s tariff policy, but also gutted the Voting Rights Act and gave Republicans an advantage in the redistricting war Trump started.
I talked to CNN Supreme Court reporter John Fritze about the coming cases as well as agita on the bench and how the court is increasingly perceived as a political organ rather than the last word of American justice.
Our conversation, edited for length and flow, is below.
WOLF:This is the quickening for Supreme Court reporters. We expect multiple major decisions in the coming month. What are the big things you’re looking for?
FRITZE: It’s the best time of year to be a Supreme Court reporter, when all the big cases come down.
One of the big themes this year, like everything else in Washington, is Donald Trump.
We think about Trump having come into office again last year, but because of the court’s calendar … this is when we’re seeing a lot of the action from the first few months of his term — things like the birthright citizenship case and the firings of independent officials.
Some of those controversies and litigation that happened throughout last year have now finally made the Supreme Court merits docket. There are also some really interesting immigration cases outside of birthright citizenship, and there’s some really interesting election cases, and then separate from Trump is this big transgender sports case.
The court has given Trump victories (redistricting) and setbacks (tariffs)
WOLF: In two of the major cases that have already been decided, Trump got a win — though he wasn’t named in the case — when the court threw out much of the Voting Rights Act. But on tariffs he got a big loss. How do you think he’s viewing this court?
FRITZE:Trump’s presence rides over this docket in so many ways, in part because of his highly unusual reaction to the tariffs case. He almost immediately said the justices who ruled against him were an embarrassment to their families. We hear presidents grousing about Supreme Court opinions often, but never in those terms.
If you talk to the justices, they would say they don’t care about that, and their role is to not care about the political branches. But it has to weigh on them that you have a president using the bully pulpit to tear down the court when it’s a decision that he doesn’t like.
WOLF: But Trump certainly liked the redistricting decision, which let Republicans take a leg up in the redistricting war he started.
FRITZE: The most interesting part of that was the timing of the case, because the redistricting case (that limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act) was held over from the last term. It’s a very important case, hard for the public to understand. But, particularly given the timing of the decision, it opened the court up to a lot of criticism that it was viewing cases through a political lens.
There’s a good deal of angst, even among the justices, about this question of politics. It always comes up in election cases. We’ve seen Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal and the junior-most justice, publicly airing these concerns that the timing and the way they’ve handled the decision may look political. She hasn’t said that she thinks they are political, but she’s been concerned about the perception of politics. And then you’ve seen Justice Samuel Alito firing back at that criticism, and Chief Justice John Roberts speaking to it publicly.
The court would say the tariffs case was an example of how they are not being political — that they’re siding with Trump and against him, depending on the case.
WOLF: They also intervened in a way that arguably will help Republicans in Alabama. They declined to intervene in a way that would help Democrats in Virginia. So the cumulative effect has been to help Republicans.
FRITZE: The argument that it’s not political is that the cases are different. The Virginia case was not a particularly strong case, and I think even liberal commentators would acknowledge that.
California, of course, won a case, so there’s a case that helped Democrats. But you’re right that overall they’ve looked at this half a dozen times now, and most of the decisions have benefited Republicans.
WOLF: And then we have another bite at the apple on decisions that could affect this coming election with how and when mail-in ballots are counted. We’re seeing that play out in California right now. Is the expectation that the court’s decision will affect the coming election?
FRITZE:The expectation is that it would affect the general election. How big of an impact is open to debate. Fourteen states have these laws that allow ballots to be postmarked by Election Day, but to come in and be counted after — and how long depends on the state. It is a relatively small number of ballots where that happens, and the states where those ballots are coming in are not states that have major elections in play this year, at least for control of Congress. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, of course, will impact future elections.
The other one involves campaign finance. There’s a case involving the coordinated expenditures between party committees and candidates. It’s pretty limited on how much they can spend in coordination and that’s given a rise to super PACs, because super PACs don’t coordinate with candidates, but they can take an unlimited amount of money. The court also signaled in oral arguments there that it would side with the Republican position. So you’ve got two big election cases coming up — in a big election year — where the court may side with the Republican position.
WOLF:Let’s go back to birthright citizenship. The oral arguments suggested the justices were skeptical of the administration position, which would limit birthright citizenship. Will they find some middle ground or will they simply reject what the White House wants them to do?
FRITZE: I don’t think it’s going to be a middle ground. What was interesting about the case was that even Republican commentators thought it was a very challenging case for the president, but that wasn’t really reflected in the argument. They gave that case a very thorough and fair hearing, and I think that was a surprise to some, because it is definitely way out pushing the boundaries of the law.
The fact that it wasn’t as clear as it might have been from oral arguments that Trump will likely lose was interesting. It still seems like Trump’s going to lose. There’s a couple of different ways that could happen. The court could go big and decide it on constitutional grounds. That would resolve the issue for all time, more or less. Or the court could go smaller and resolve it on statutory grounds, on the law. That would be a less permanent solution, because Congress at some point could change the law. The Supreme Court tends to like to solve it on statutory grounds if it has a choice between those two, so I wouldn’t necessarily read the narrower decision as a big win for Trump.
WOLF: You have a tracker for CNN subscribers that goes through all these cases, and you separate them into different buckets, one of which is presidential power. Those cases have to do with a president’s power to fire people from the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission. Is the expectation that the court will allow him to fire people that were theoretically protected by law, or that they will restrict his ability to do that?
FRITZE:I think they’re going to do both. There’s two cases there. One is involving a commissioner on the FTC (Rebecca Kelly Slaughter), and that case deals with whether the president can fire these officials and independent agencies just because he wants to, because he disagrees with the policy. There is both law and a Supreme Court precedent from the 1930s that ostensibly protects those agencies from presidential involvement. Based on oral arguments, an imperfect predictor, it seemed that the Supreme Court would side with Trump and give him more power to fire and remove these leaders and independent agencies.
The exception may be (Lisa) Cook, and that involves the Federal Reserve. In that case, Trump has argued that he has cause, which is this allegation of impropriety with mortgage papers. Cook has denied any wrongdoing, but the issue there is more about what sort of process Trump has to provide if he suspects he has cause to fire somebody.
The big picture there is that the Supreme Court, in a number of opinions, has signaled that it views the Fed differently based on history, based on its role in managing the economy through the interest rates. And so that is a case where I think Trump is going to have a much harder time.
WOLF:What is expected on the social issues cases — on transgender people’s participation in youth sports and guns?
FRITZE: The transgender sports bans is a really interesting case. The Trump administration took a stake in that case, siding with the states that have these bans, Idaho and West Virginia. But roughly half of states have these bans that bar transgender girls from competing on girls’ sports teams. Not just at argument, which is often our main way of predicting a case, but also its prior case load suggests that the court is very skeptical of efforts to overturn these state laws.
The LGBTQ community has suffered pretty significant losses at the court on the emergency docket over the past couple of years. Last term there was a big case involving Tennessee’s law and transgender care — Tennessee had a ban on that, and the Supreme Court upheld it, arguing that states can make these decisions. Just looking at past decisions and the arguments, I think the LGBTQ folks have a very difficult hill to climb on that case.
FRITZE: The guns case. There are a couple, but the one that I think has gotten the most attention involves a gentleman who is a regular user of marijuana, and the federal statute says that people who are regular users of drugs can be disarmed. That’s a real issue, given how state laws around marijuana have changed in this country over the last 10 years.
The justices were concerned about the reach of this law, it’s also a court that has been pretty pro-Second Amendment the last couple of terms. So you could easily see the court limiting the scope of that law in some way. It’s another case where the Trump administration probably has an uphill climb. Interesting that it is defending this federal law, and on the opposite side of the NRA.
WOLF: What is the chatter about whether we’ll have a justice step down? Because this is pretty much the last moment to guarantee they would be replaced by a conservative. If Democrats took control of the Senate in the midterms, they would be unlikely to approve any Republican nominee at this point. Is this conservatives’ Ruth Bader Ginsberg moment?
FRITZE:We’re watching Samuel Alito, of course, and Clarence Thomas, two conservatives who are both in their late 70s. Alito is 76. Thomas turns 78 later this month. Relatively young by Supreme Court standards, both in great health, both super engaged on the bench, super engaged in writing opinions. There have been reports that they are not planning to retire, but as you know, the politics align only every so often. Certainly all of us will be listening very closely to the announcements from the court after the opinions come out in the final days.
WOLF: Thomas is kind of interesting because he did not replace a fellow conservative, but rather Thurgood Marshall, who retired when he was in poor health, maybe not thinking Bill Clinton was going to win the next election. Will Thomas, in his mind, try to keep the seat for a conservative, or does that even factor in for him?
FRITZE: I think they all retire with the president’s party that nominated them in mind. Thomas just this year became the second-longest-serving justice of all time. In two years he would be the longest-serving justice of all time. A lot of folks think that Thomas will stick around for that record.
(Justice William Douglas, who was confirmed in 1939 and retired in 1975 after a stroke, currently holds the record.)
Justices are out and about more often, selling books and getting grief from all sides
WOLF: What has changed covering the court in the last couple of years?
FRITZE: We do see the justices out and about more, and that’s because a lot of them are writing books. In the last couple of years, several have been out speaking about books, and some of those events are opportunities for them to talk about what’s happening behind the curtain, which we don’t get a real glimpse of, but there are little clues that sometimes pop up in those remarks.
Justice Jackson’s remarks recently in Washington were unusual, because we don’t normally see them talking about cases specifically and explaining their opinions. They usually will say the opinion stands for itself, and whatever they wrote stands for itself. Her remarks continuing to make the case for why she felt the court made the wrong decision in one of these redistricting cases were quite striking, frankly. And I think it spoke to this tension that is a little unusual. You have John Roberts going out and in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a few weeks ago, saying, well, I think people sort of misunderstand that we’re not political actors, and going off on that for quite a long time. I’m not saying that was a response to Jackson; I don’t know if it was. But there does seem to be a lot of tension.
The left is really worked up about the redistricting cases, and you’ve got Trump ready to pounce, which was clear based on his reaction to the tariffs case. They’re hearing it from all sides.