2026-03-07 / 路透社
摘要
- 法官们阻碍了许多特朗普政府被认定为非法的政策
- 特朗普声称法官们正在侵犯总统权力
- 他向最高法院提出的紧急诉讼中有97%都提出了这一主张
- 相比之下，拜登政府提出的类似紧急诉讼中，这一比例为26%
3月7日（路透社）- 自美国总统唐纳德·特朗普去年重返白宫以来，他和他的盟友们将那些裁定其政策违法的联邦法官斥为” rogue”（流氓）、”crooked”（腐败）、”lunatic”（疯子）等，并不仅将他们的行为描述为错误，还认定其不合法。
路透社的分析显示，除了这位共和党总统在演讲和社交媒体上的恶毒攻击外，其政府还在美国最高法院展开了一场更具系统性的努力，旨在削弱联邦司法机构的权力。
《路透社伊朗简报》通讯将为您提供伊朗战争最新动态和分析。请在此注册。
[广告]
在过去一年中，特朗普政府紧急向最高法院提交了数十份紧急请求，以推动那些被下级法院法官质疑合法性的政策获得批准。
该政府在书面陈述中提出了多项法律论点，但值得注意的是，它利用这些请求质疑那些其裁决受到挑战的法官的权威。
分析显示，自2025年2月以来，特朗普政府司法部向最高法院提交的31份紧急请求中，几乎所有（97%）都声称法官不当干涉了总统根据美国宪法和各项法律所享有的权力。
相比之下，在特朗普的民主党前任乔·拜登政府四年任期内提出的19份紧急请求中，只有26%认为司法机构干涉了总统权力。
更多单边权力
根据法律专家和前法官的说法，特朗普政府的这一做法反映了其试图削弱法官制约总统及其议程能力的协同努力。
弗吉尼亚大学法学院总统权力和联邦法院专家Payvand Ahdout表示：”政府正在攻击联邦法官质疑或审查行政行动的能力。”
“随着政府试图行使更多单边权力，强有力的司法审查对他们来说是个问题，”Ahdout补充道。
特朗普在第二任期内的国内事务和外交政策中积极试探总统权力的极限，在多个领域引发了数百起法律挑战。
最高法院以6:3的保守派多数（其中包括三名特朗普任命的大法官）在大多数紧急案件中支持了他，允许他解雇联邦雇员、控制独立机构、禁止跨性别者服役以及将移民驱逐到没有联系的国家等。与通常的工作方式不同，最高法院通常会快速处理紧急请求，无需大量书面陈述或口头辩论。
不足为奇
一位了解该法律策略的司法部官员（要求匿名）表示，任何认为其论点不寻常的说法都是误导性的。
该官员指出，司法部在最高法院的胜诉率很高，并强调其许多请求涉及最高法院传统上对总统让步的领域，如移民和联邦雇员。
“毫不奇怪，本部门在捍卫第二条宪法规定的特权时更为强硬，”该官员指的是宪法中赋予总统行政权力的条款。
除了声称司法干涉外，特朗普的紧急请求还以其他方式质疑法官的权力。
分析显示，在这些请求中，68%认为法官无权审查特朗普的行动或对案件拥有管辖权。在拜登的紧急请求中，只有16%提出了类似论点。
71%的特朗普请求认为法官无权向原告提供救济（如冻结某政策的法院命令）。而在拜登任内，这一比例为63%，反映了两党总统对他们认为过于宽泛的司法命令的不满。
拜登和特朗普任内的司法部都敦促最高法院限制所谓的”普遍性”禁令，这些禁令会在全国范围内阻止他们的政策。最高法院终于在去年6月处理了这一问题，该案由特朗普而非拜登提起，为其带来了限制法官权力的重大胜利。
尽管此案涉及特朗普试图限制自动出生公民权的企图，但裁决并未涉及该指令的合法性。法院将于4月1日就该问题进行辩论。
解释甚少
最高法院在紧急案件中的裁决往往解释甚少，使得难以评估政府的哪些论点（如果有的话）占了上风。
例如，特朗普在地区法院法官阻止他解雇多个独立联邦机构的民主党成员（包括两个劳工委员会、一个消费者安全监督机构和联邦贸易委员会）后，寻求最高法院干预。司法部辩称，这些司法行动侵犯了总统权力，法院不能审查解雇行为或恢复这些官员的职务。
最高法院的保守派多数允许解雇，但未给出充分理由，仅在其中一个案件中简要提及了其先前支持总统解雇行使行政权力官员的裁决。
在三项5:4的裁决中，大法官们撤销了下级法院阻止削减联邦拨款和特朗普使用18世纪战时法律加速驱逐移民的裁决。在此过程中，他们似乎同意政府的观点，即法官缺乏审查争议的管辖权，因为争议本应在另一个法院审理。
司法部试图削弱法官权力之际，特朗普的批评者和一些法官担忧行政官员有时无视地区法院命令，以及持续对司法机构的口头攻击。特朗普甚至将怒火转向最高法院，上月称那些裁定其全面全球关税违法的大法官是”lapdogs”（哈巴狗），受外国利益影响。
前德克萨斯州联邦法官（去年退休的民主党前总统比尔·克林顿任命的Barbara Lynn）表示：”政府在简要陈述和辩论中提出的立场是对司法审查和司法权力的非常狭隘的看法。这在公共领域表现为：如果法官超出了这种有限的角色，他们就是骗子和腐败分子。”
“这是一个可悲、不恰当的发展，如果这种观点占上风，美国本质上可能将不存在制衡机制，”Lynn说道。
权力攫取
政府关于司法干涉的说法，将法官描述为夺取、篡夺或抢夺本应属于总统的权力。
例如，在一个涉及特朗普解雇数千名联邦雇员的案件中，司法部警告这是”对宪法结构的持续攻击”，并告诉最高法院：”只有最高法院能够结束这种跨部门权力攫取。”
当一名法官阻止特朗普削减教师培训资金（作为其反对多元化举措的一部分）时，政府要求最高法院结束法官”作为自我任命的行政部门资金管理者的违宪统治”。
司法部称，一名法官限制政府将移民驱逐到无联系国家的计划的行为”造成严重破坏”并”篡夺了行政部门对移民政策的权力”。
一些法律专家表示，特朗普政府试图将最高法院（由首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨领导）在移民、外交事务和解雇等领域给予总统的那种尊重扩展到新的争议中，这并不令人惊讶。
加州大学伯克利分校法学院教授John Yoo（曾在共和党小布什政府担任司法部官员）表示：”他们试图加速罗伯茨法院已经开始的事情，即缩小司法机构在…总统管理行政部门方面的参与。”
乔治亚州立大学法学院教授Eric Segall表示，该政府的论点反映了司法部策略的转变。
“他们让每个案件听起来都像是五警笛警报，一旦法官介入就会摧毁美国总统的职位，”Segall曾在共和党老布什政府担任司法部官员。
内华达州退休联邦法官Philip Pro表示，政府的法律策略似乎将法官视为阻碍。
“如果我作为司法机构成员不同意你，那么你就是阻碍，因为我想在任何时间、任何地点做我想做的事，而你不能阻止我，”Pro说道。
解雇丽莎·库克案
在涉及特朗普试图解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克的案件中，大法官们对政府的立场提出了质疑。
尽管国会为美联储官员提供了保护，但特朗普基于库克否认的未经证实的抵押贷款欺诈指控，试图罢免她——这是前所未有的举动，威胁到世界最重要央行的独立性。一名联邦法官阻止了这一解雇。最高法院于1月安排了一次罕见的口头辩论，随后决定是否批准特朗普解除法官命令的紧急请求。
在辩论中，一些大法官对政府关于法院审查特朗普解雇理由的能力有限或恢复库克职位的说法提出质疑。
“如果存在任何程度的理由…那么你不能说法院不能下令恢复被解雇人员的职务，”罗伯茨对代表政府的副检察长D. John Sauer说道。
库克案的裁决可能随时作出。
纽约报道：Andrew Chung；编辑：Amy Stevens和Will Dunham
我们的标准：路透社信托原则。
How Donald Trump is pushing the Supreme Court to weaken federal judges
2026-03-07 / Reuters
Summary
- Judges have impeded many Trump policies deemed unlawful
- Trump argues judges are intruding on presidential powers
- 97% of his emergency Supreme Court filings make that claim
- For comparable Biden administration filings, it was 26%
March 7 (Reuters) – Since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office last year, he and his allies have derided federal judges who ruled against his policies as “rogue,” “crooked,” “lunatic” and more, casting their actions not only as incorrect but illegitimate as well.
Beyond the Republican president’s vitriol in speeches and social media posts, his administration has launched a more systematic effort at the U.S. Supreme Court to diminish the power of the federal judiciary, a Reuters analysis shows.
The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.
Report Ad
The administration in the past year has raced to the Supreme Court with dozens of emergency requests to green-light policies impeded by lower-court judges who questioned their legality.
The administration includes in its written filings multiple legal arguments, but to a remarkable degree it has used these requests to question the very authority of the judges whose decisions are being challenged.
Of the 31 emergency requests Trump’s Justice Department has filed at the Supreme Court since february 2025, nearly all – 97% – claim the judge is improperly interfering with the president’s power under the U.S. Constitution and various laws, according to the analysis.
By contrast, in the 19 emergency requests filed by Trump’s Democratic predecessor Joe Biden’s administration over four years, just 26% suggested judicial interference with presidential authority.
‘MORE UNILATERAL POWER’
The Trump administration’s approach reflects a concerted effort to diminish the power of judges to restrain the president and his agenda, according to legal experts and former judges.
The arguments go beyond outlining why a judge reached what the administration considers an incorrect legal conclusion, according to Payvand Ahdout, an expert on presidential power and the federal courts at the University of Virginia School of Law.
“The administration is attacking the ability of federal judges to question or review the executive actions,” Ahdout said.
“As the administration seeks to assert more unilateral power, robust judicial review is a problem for them,” Ahdout added.
Trump has aggressively tested the limits of presidential powers during his second term in domestic affairs and foreign policy, drawing hundreds of legal challenges on numerous fronts.
The Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed, has backed him in most of these emergency cases, letting him fire federal employees, take control of independent agencies, ban transgender people from the military and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, among other actions. Unlike its usual work, the court typically handles emergency requests quickly, without extensive written briefing or oral arguments.
‘NO SURPRISE’
A Justice Department official with knowledge of the legal strategy, u200bspeaking on condition of anonymity, said any suggestion that its arguments are unusual is misleading.
Pointing to its high win rate at the Supreme Court, the official noted that many of the department’s requests involve areas where the justices traditionally have deferred to the president, such as immigration and the federal workforce.
“It should come as no surprise that this department is more forceful in defending article II prerogatives,” the official said, referring to the constitutional provision vesting executive power in the president.
In addition to claiming judicial interference, Trump’s emergency requests challenge the power of judges in other ways.
Among these requests, 68% argue that the judge had no power to review Trump’s action or jurisdiction over the case, according to the analysis. Among Biden’s emergency requests, only 16% made such an argument.
And 71% of Trump’s requests argue the judge had no power to provide the relief – such as a court order freezing a policy – granted to the plaintiffs. Under Biden, that figure was 63%, reflecting frustration by presidents of both parties with judicial orders they consider overbroad.
The Justice Department under both Biden and Trump urged the Supreme Court to curtail so-called “universal” injunctions that blocked their policies nationwide. The court finally tackled that issue last June in a case brought by Trump, not Biden, handing him a landmark victory reining in judges.
Though that case involved Trump’s bid to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, the ruling did not involve the legality of that directive. The court will hear arguments on that question on April 1.
LITTLE EXPLANATION
The Supreme Court’s decisions in emergency cases often come with little explanation, making it hard to assess which of the administration’s arguments, if any, have carried the day.
For example, Trump sought supreme Court intervention after judges at the district court level blocked his firings of multiple Democratic members of independent federal agencies, including two labor boards, a consumer-safety watchdog and the Federal Trade Commission. The Justice Department argued that those judicial actions intruded on the president’s power and that courts cannot review the firings or reinstate the officials.
The court’s conservative majority allowed the removals but provided little reasoning, briefly referencing in one of the cases its prior rulings endorsing a president’s authority to fire agency officers wielding executive power.
In three 5-4 decisions in which they provided a rationale, the justices lifted decisions by lower courts that blocked federal grant cuts and Trump’s use of an 18th-century law meant for use during wartime to speed deportations. In doing so, the justices appeared to agree with the administration that the judges lacked jurisdiction to review the dispute u200bbecause it should have been before a different court.
The Justice Department’s bid to undermine the power of judges comes amid concerns by Trump’s critics and some judges that administration officials are sometimes defying district court orders, as well as continuing verbal attacks on the judiciary. Trump has even directed his ire at the Supreme Court, last month calling justices who ruled against his sweeping global tariffs “lapdogs” swayed by foreign interests.
“The administration’s position stated in briefs and argument is for a very narrow view of judicial review and judicial power. And that then manifests itself in the public square as: if judges move out of that more limited role, they’re crooks and corrupt,” said Barbara Lynn, a former federal judge in Texas who retired last year.
“That is a sad, inappropriate development, and runs the risk of there being, essentially, no checks and balances in this country if that view prevails,” said Lynn, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton.
‘POWER GRAB’
The administration’s claims of judicial interference variously describe judges as seizing, usurping or grabbing power rightfully belonging to the president.
For instance, in a case concerning Trump’s effort to fire thousands of federal employees, the Justice Department warned of an “ongoing assault on the constitutional structure,” telling the Supreme Court: “Only this court can end the interbranch power grab.”
When a judge blocked Trump’s bid to cut teacher-training grants as part of his campaign against u200bdiversity initiatives, the administration asked the Supreme Court to end judges’ “unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of executive branch funding.”
A judge’s moves restricting the administration’s plan to deport migrants to countries where they have no ties were “wreaking havoc” and “usurping the executive’s authority over immigration policy,” the Justice Department said.
Some legal experts said it is not surprising that Trump’s administration would seek to extend to novel disputes the kind of deference that the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has already given to presidents in areas such as immigration, foreign affairs and firings.
“They are trying to accelerate things that the Roberts court itself had already started, which is to narrow judicial involvement in … the president’s management of the executive branch,” said University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo, who worked as a Justice Department official during Republican George W. Bush’s presidency.
The administration’s arguments reflect a change in approach for u200bthe Justice Department, Georgia State University College of Law professor Eric Segall said.
“They make it sound like every case is a five-alarm fire that will destroy the presidency of the United States if judges get involved,” said Segall, who worked in the department during Republican George H.W. Bush’s presidency.
Philip Pro, a retired federal judge from Nevada, said the administration’s legal strategy appears to view judges as an obstruction.
“If I don’t agree with you as a member of the judiciary, then you’re an obstruction because I want to do what I want to do, whenever I want to do it, wherever I want to do it, and you can’t tell me otherwise,” said Pro, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan.
LISA COOK FIRING
In the case involving Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the justices signaled the administration’s views on judges may go too far.
Despite protections provided by Congress for Fed officials, Trump has sought to remove Cook – an unprecedented move that threatens the independence of the world’s most important central bank – based on unproven mortgage fraud allegations that she denies. A federal judge blocked the firing. The Supreme Court scheduled a rare oral argument in January before it decides Trump’s emergency request to lift the judge’s order.
During the arguments, some justices balked at the administration’s contention that courts are limited in their ability to review Trump’s stated cause for the termination, or to reinstate her.
“If there is any level of cause … then you can’t be right about the idea that courts can’t order anybody who’s been removed to be reinstated,” Roberts told Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the administration.
A decision in the Cook case could come at any time.
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Amy Stevens and Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
购买此文章