2026-04-29T04:01:51.678Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：琼·比斯库皮奇，CNN首席最高法院分析师
发布时间：2026年4月29日，美国东部时间凌晨12:01
2026年3月17日，海地援助中心执行主任维尔斯·多尔塞尼维尔和俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德大恩典圣殿的副牧师布兰登·彼得森在华盛顿特区美国最高法院外聆听祈祷。
罗伯托·施密特/法新社/盖蒂图片社
八年前，在最高法院针对唐纳德·特朗普一项政策的首场重大交锋中，大法官们无视总统的反穆斯林言论，维持了对多数穆斯林国家的旅行禁令。
如今，特朗普的律师们援引这一判决，敦促大法官们无视他对海地人的贬损言论，支持他驱逐因本国动荡而获得美国“临时保护身份”的特定移民的计划。旅行禁令案允许总统以“合法”的国家安全利益为由为禁令辩护，无论其动机是否出于敌意。
该判决开启了最高法院支持特朗普权力的先例。这也是最高法院保守派首次对总统带有偏见的主张采取后来被证明是狭隘僵化的处理方式。
在发布旅行禁令之前，特朗普曾声称“伊斯兰教憎恨我们”，并誓言“全面、彻底禁止”穆斯林难民入境。
“我们今天面临的问题不是要不要谴责这些言论，”首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在2018年6月那个戏剧性的上午宣读多数派意见时说道，“问题在于，在审查一项表面上中立、涉及总统核心职权范围的行政指令时，这些言论的意义何在。”
持不同意见的大法官批评多数派“盲目接受……一项出于对特定群体敌意的歧视性政策，却以表面上的国家安全主张为借口”。
迄今为止可能最重要的特朗普相关判决——涉及他对公职行为免于刑事起诉的特权——也涉及了总统动机的问题，并且将动机列为不可审查的内容。这起2024年的案件源于司法部对特朗普的选举颠覆指控。（由于最高法院介入，该案从未进入审判程序。）
“在划分官方行为与非官方行为时，”最高法院多数派表示，“法院不得调查总统的动机。”持不同意见的大法官抱怨道：“根据这一规则，任何出于任何目的使用公权力的行为，即便有客观证据表明存在最腐败的动机和意图，也仍属于官方行为，享有豁免权。”
大法官尼尔·戈萨奇在该案口头辩论中提出的一个问题凸显了部分大法官如何权衡特朗普的行为与对总统职位的尊重。
“我们是否要考量动机，即总统采取行动的动机？”戈萨奇问道，并补充道，“我不太担心本案，更担心未来的案件……我们正在制定一项永恒的规则。”
将于周三开庭审理的新争议则将特朗普的动机——具体而言是所谓的种族敌意——置于明面上。
多年来，他一直刻意诋毁海地人。在第一任期内，特朗普将海地称为“肮脏……粪坑国家”；在2024年竞选期间，他还虚假声称俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德的海地人“吃狗”“吃猫”。
此前获得“临时保护身份”的海地裔群体的律师在向最高法院提交的材料中辩称，这种种族敌意促使政府在2025年发布命令终止他们的临时保护身份。
2026年2月3日，在俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德的博恩撒玛利亚食品店，一名联邦法官发布临时禁令，阻止特朗普政府剥夺海地移民的临时保护身份（TPS）。图中，巴米莉亚·德尔西恩·奥利斯坦（中）正在帮助另一位海地移民向海地汇现金。
宾·关/路透社
这项挑战基于宪法平等保护原则，但海地临时保护身份持有者还提出了程序性异议，这可能影响到众多其他国家的临时保护身份持有者的命运。海地相关争议将于周三与叙利亚临时保护身份持有者提起的伴随案件一同审理。
根据《临时保护身份法》，国土安全部部长可为因武装冲突、自然灾害或其他特殊情况无法回国的外国人提供临时免于递解出境的保护。该法律对终止保护身份的决定规定了各种程序性要求。
自再次就职以来，特朗普加快了其反移民议程，其政府已寻求终止包括委内瑞拉、洪都拉斯和索马里在内的十多个国家的临时保护身份覆盖范围，引发了多起诉讼。
预计居住在美国的约35万海地人将受到临时保护身份撤销的影响。最高法院审理的伴随案件涉及约6000名居住在美国的叙利亚公民。
司法部律师辩称，终止临时保护身份是基于国家安全和外交政策利益。他们援引特朗普诉夏威夷州旅行禁令案驳斥海地方面的种族偏见指控，当时多数派驳回了特朗普的反穆斯林言论暴露违宪宗教偏见的主张。
“在本案中，与当时一样，挑战者援引了总统在竞选期间和就职后的外部言论作为证据，证明违宪的敌意影响了官方行为，”美国副检察长约翰·绍尔在书面答辩状中告诉大法官们。
2026年2月3日，在北迈阿密的小海地文化中心，人们在联邦法院阻止特朗普政府终止海地移民临时移民身份（TPS）后，手拉手并挥舞海地国旗举行守夜活动。
林恩·斯莱德克/美联社
绍尔指出，特朗普的政治言论在2018年并未影响大法官们，他补充道：“法院裁定（旅行禁令）公告符合宪法标准……当时和现在一样，行政行为‘表面上中立’，且涉及‘国家安全’。”
海地裔律师辩称，当前的争议与当时有显著不同：本案涉及目前合法留在美国的人员，而特朗普诉夏威夷州案中的外国人当时身处境外，试图入境美国。
他们还指出，正是在2024年总统辩论中特朗普虚假声称海地临时保护身份持有者“吃”居民宠物之后，他才誓言撤销临时保护身份，将海地人遣返回国。
对大法官的更多攻击
最高法院多数派多年来大多无视特朗普的鲁莽言论。但如今他的抨击已经直指要害。
自最高法院2月裁定驳回其针对外国商品的大规模关税政策以来，特朗普多次谴责大法官们。上周他继续发表此类抨击时，将矛头对准了唯一的非裔女性大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊。这位2022年由总统乔·拜登任命的最新大法官。
“民主党大法官们像胶水一样团结一致，从未偏离他们扭曲反常的政策、理念和案件，”他在Truth Social上写道，言辞夸张且带有种族冒犯性，“他们总是集体投票，或者阻挠，哪怕是那个新来的、智商低下的人，不知怎么就混进了法院（瞌睡乔！）。”
杰克逊拒绝就特朗普的言论回应CNN的置评请求。
特朗普越来越多地攻击各级联邦法院的法官。他对大法官们的侮辱已经升级为人身攻击，比如他在2月表示，在关税争端中投下多数票的大法官“令他们的家人蒙羞”。（大法官们拒绝公开回应这一言论。）
这张法庭速写显示，美国副检察长D·约翰·绍尔和唐纳德·特朗普总统在华盛顿特区美国最高法院就特朗普试图终止美国自动出生公民权的行政命令进行口头辩论时的场景，拍摄于4月1日。
达纳·韦克伦登
“本可由任何其他总统做出”
2018年的特朗普诉夏威夷州案源于2017年1月特朗普第一任期伊始发布的一系列行政命令，禁止特定多数穆斯林国家的国民入境。
当争议提交至最高法院时，已是第三版旅行禁令命令，成为当年度庭审最受关注的案件。2018年6月26日，罗伯茨从法官席宣布裁决，驳回了特朗普针对穆斯林的言论暴露违反第一修正案的宗教偏见的主张。
“本案所涉入境禁令，”罗伯茨说，“是一项本可由任何其他总统做出的行为。”
当时最高法院的其他四名保守派大法官均加入了他的意见。自2020年特朗普任命的艾米·科尼·巴雷特接替自由派大法官露丝·巴德·金斯伯格以来，最高法院的立场进一步右倾。（不过值得注意的是，巴雷特有与海地相关的亲身经历：她的七个孩子中有两个是从该国收养的。）
2018年罗伯茨宣布判决后，大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔高声宣读了她的不同意见，金斯伯格完全加入了该意见。她重复了特朗普最具争议的言论，包括“伊斯兰教憎恨我们”和“我们在穆斯林入境美国的问题上遇到了麻烦”。
2026年4月1日，警察在美国最高法院外执勤。
希瑟·迪尔/盖蒂图片社
索托马约尔补充道，特朗普曾指责“恐怖袭击是因为穆斯林缺乏同化以及他们对伊斯兰教法的承诺……他认为穆斯林‘根本不尊重我们’”。
索托马约尔随后抬头对法庭旁听者说：“花点时间，理解这些言论的严重性……然后记住，这些言论大多是现任美国总统——也就是发布了本案核心的三项行政命令的人——所说或所写的。”
Will Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric matter at the Supreme Court?
2026-04-29T04:01:51.678Z / CNN
By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst
PUBLISHED Apr 29, 2026, 12:01 AM ET
Viles Dorsainvil, Executive Director of the Haitian Support Center, and Associate Pastor Brandon Peterson of Greater Grace Temple in Springfield, Ohio, listen to a prayer outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2026.
Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images
Eight years ago, in the Supreme Court’s first significant battle over a Donald Trump policy, the justices dismissed the president’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and upheld a travel ban on majority-Muslim countries.
Now, Trump’s lawyers are invoking the decision as they urge the justices to ignore his derogatory comments about Haitians and endorse his plan to deport certain migrants previously granted “temporary protected status” in the US because of turmoil in their home country. The travel ban case allowed the president to defend the ban based on a “legitimate” national security interest, irrespective of whether it had been motivated by animus.
The decision launched the court’s pattern of bolstering Trump’s power. It was also the first major case in which the court’s conservatives adopted what has a become blinkered approach to the president’s biased assertions.
Before he ordered the ban, Trump had claimed, “Islam hates us,” and he vowed “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslim refugees.
“The issue before us today is not whether to denounce the statements,” Chief Justice John Roberts said as he read excerpts of his majority opinion from the bench on that dramatic June 2018 morning. “It is instead the significance of the statements in reviewing a presidential directive neutral on its face, addressing the matter within the core of presidential authority.”
Dissenting justices faulted the majority for “blindly accepting … a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security.”
Perhaps the most significant Trump ruling to date, involving his immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, relatedly touched on the president’s motives — and put them off-limits. That 2024 case arose from the Justice Department’s election-subversion charges against Trump. (The matter never went to trial, because the Supreme Court intervened.)
President Donald Trump points to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after being sworn in, inside the US Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AFP/Getty Images
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct,” the Supreme Court majority said, “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” Dissenting justices complained, “Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune.”
A query from Justice Neil Gorsuch during oral arguments in the case underscored how some justices balanced Trump’s actions with regard for the office of the presidency.
“Do we look at motives, the president’s motives for his actions?” Gorsuch asked, adding, “I’m not concerned about this case so much as future ones too. … We’re writing a rule for the ages.”
The new dispute to be argued Wednesday puts Trump’s motivations — specifically related to alleged racial animus — clearly in sight.
He has specifically vilified Haitians over the years. Trump described Haiti as a “filthy … shithole” country during his first term and during the 2024 campaign, falsely asserted that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were “eating the dogs,” “eating the cats.”
Lawyers for the group of Haitians previously granted “temporary protected status” contend in arguments to the Supreme Court that such racial animus prompted the administration’s 2025 order to end their TPS designation.
Bamilia Delcine Olistin, center, helps another fellow Haitian immigrant, right, send a cash remittance to Haiti, after a federal judge issued a temporary stay blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants, at Bon Samaritain Food Store in Springfield, Ohio,on February 3, 2026.
Bing Guan/Reuters
That challenge is based on constitutional equal protection, but the Haitian TPS holders have also raised procedural arguments that could affect the fate of recipients from a swath of countries. The Haitian controversy will be heard Wednesday with a companion case brought by Syrian TPS holders.
Under the TPS law, the secretary of homeland security may provide temporary protection from removal to foreigners who cannot return to their home country because of armed conflict, natural disaster or other extraordinary conditions. The law imposes various procedural requirements on the decision to end the protected status.
Since returning to office, Trump has accelerated his anti-immigrant agenda and his administration has sought to terminate TPS coverage in more than a dozen countries, including Venezuela, Honduras, and Somalia, spurring numerous court challenges.
An estimated 350,000 Haitians living in America could be affected by the TPS revocation. The companion case at the Supreme Court involves an estimated 6,000 Syrian nationals living in the US.
Justice Department lawyers argue that the TPS terminations were based on national security and foreign policy interests. They refute the Haitian claim of racial bias by relying on the Trump v. Hawaii travel ban case, when the majority dismissed arguments that Trump’s anti-Muslim comments revealed unconstitutional religious bias.
“There, like here, the challengers invoked extrinsic campaign statements and in-office quotes from the President as proof that unconstitutional animus infected official action,” US Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices in a written brief.
People hold hands and a Haitian flag during a vigil at the Little Haiti Cultural Complex after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary immigration status, or TPS, for Haitians, on February 3, 2026, in North Miami.
Lynne Sladky/AP
Noting that Trump’s politically charged statements failed to influence the justices back in 2018, Sauer added, “The Court held that the (travel ban) proclamation passed constitutional muster … . There, as here, the Executive action was ‘facially neutral’ and involved ‘national security.’”
Lawyers for the Haitians argue that the current controversy differs significantly, involving people lawfully in the US right now, unlike the foreigners in Trump v. Hawaii who were outside the country seeking entry.
They also note that it was soon after his false claim during a 2024 presidential debate that Haitian TPS holders were “eating” residents’ pets that Trump vowed to revoke the TPS status and return Haitians to their home country.
More attacks on justices
The high court majority has mostly brushed away Trump’s reckless statements over the years. But his outbursts are now hitting close to home.
Since the Supreme Court’s February decision striking down his far-reaching tariffs on foreign goods, Trump has repeatedly denounced the justices. Last week as he continued that tirade, he targeted the one Black woman justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson. The newest justice was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022.
“The Democrat Justices stick together like glue, NEVER failing to wander from the warped and perverse policies, ideas, and cases put before them,” he wrote on Truth Social with hyperbole that turned racially offensive. “They ALWAYS vote as a group, or BLOCK, even that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench (Sleepy Joe!).”
Jackson declined to respond to a CNN request regarding the Trump remark.
Trump has increasingly mounted his attacks on judges at all levels of the federal court system. His insults against the justices have turned personal, as when he said in February that justices who voted in the majority in the tariff dispute were an “embarrassment to their families.” (The justices have declined to publicly respond to that comment.)
This courtroom sketch shows US Solicitor General D. John Sauer and President Donald Trump during oral arguments over Trump’s executive order that attempts to end automatic birthright citizenship at the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 1.
Dana Verkouteren
‘Could have been taken by any other president’
The 2018 case of Trump v. Hawaii traced to Trump’s first days in office in January 2017, when he began imposing a series of orders prohibiting the entry of nationals from certain majority-Muslim countries.
When the dispute arrived at the high court, with the third iteration of the travel-ban order, it was the most closely watched case of the annual session. Announcing the ruling from the bench on June 26, 2018, Roberts rejected arguments that Trump’s statements against Muslims revealed a religious bias that violated the First Amendment.
“The entry suspension at issue here,” Roberts said, “is an act that could have been taken by any other president.”
He was joined in full by the court’s four other conservatives at the time. The court has only moved more rightward since Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett succeeded liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. (It is notable, however, that Barrett has first-hand experience with Haiti; two of her seven children were adopted from the country.)
Back in 2018, after Roberts announced the opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud excerpts of her dissenting opinion, which was joined fully by Ginsburg. She repeated some of Trump’s most controversial statements, including, “Islam hates us” and “We’re having problems with Muslims coming into this country.”
Police stand outside the US Supreme Court on April 1, 2026.
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
Trump had blamed “terrorist attacks on Muslims’ lack of assimilation and their commitment to Sharia law. … He opined that Muslims, ‘Do not respect us at all,’” Sotomayor added.
Sotomayor then looked up and told courtroom spectators: “Take a brief moment and let the gravity of those statements sink in. … Then remember that most of these words were spoken or written by the current president of the United States of America, the man who issued the three executive orders at the center of this case.”