2026-10-04T07:00:16-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯——美国最高法院新开庭期即将临近，未来数月大法官们将审理涉及气候变化、特朗普总统的移民政策以及第二修正案等最受关注的争议案件。
不过，最高法院还暗藏多起与特朗普第二任期议程相关的法律纠纷，大法官们将在即将举行的闭门会议上讨论这些案件，若最高法院受理，则会在2027年夏季前作出裁决。
美国最高法院将于本周一开启新开庭期，首场辩论将围绕科罗拉多州博尔德市县在州法院提起的诉讼展开，该诉讼旨在追究能源公司对全球气候变化影响的责任。
以下是10月5日开始的新一届开庭期内，最高法院目前已确定将审理的重大案件：
气候变化：森科能源公司诉博尔德县委员会
新开庭期首日，最高法院将审理博尔德县与两家能源公司——森科能源和埃克森美孚之间的纠纷。
最高法院面临的核心问题是一个技术性议题：联邦法律是否阻止博尔德县在州法院起诉能源公司，并声称化石燃料的销售及所谓的欺骗性营销违反州法律。
该案的判决结果可能对数十起类似诉讼产生重大影响，这些诉讼由各州和地方政府提起，旨在追究化石燃料生产商对气候变化影响的责任。若判决有利于能源公司，将驳回博尔德县尚处于初期阶段、旨在索要损害赔偿的诉讼。
埃克森美孚和森科能源的律师警告称，如果最高法院允许此类诉讼继续推进并最终胜诉，实际上相当于对化石燃料生产商征收碳税，并可能“拖垮”整个行业。
在提交给最高法院的文件中，他们将气候变化称为“我们这个时代最复杂的公共政策挑战之一”，称其源于各国各州排放的温室气体累积。森科能源和埃克森美孚的律师表示，这些排放“无法被分离并追溯到单个排放源”。
该案源于科罗拉多州最高法院的上诉，该州最高法院允许博尔德县的诉讼继续进行。最高法院还将审查自身是否有权审理该判决。
能源公司警告称，如果这一裁决在全国范围内得到维持和采纳，将为全美50个州及其市政当局“打开绿灯，允许其要求当地法院为国家制定无数相互冲突的气候政策”。
博尔德县的律师辩称，宪法允许各州解决本州境内产生的危害。他们表示，这些危害是否应在联邦层面更好地解决，决定权在国会手中。
该县官员表示，能源公司匆忙将案件提交至最高法院，而应等待州法院对该案作出最终裁决后再寻求复审。
“气候变化是全球性问题，这一点并不剥夺各州纠正其国内危害的权力，”他们写道，“此次诉讼并非试图解决气候变化问题；它只是要求被告方为其侵权行为造成的部分当地成本承担公平份额。”
根据周一致双方律师的信函，大法官塞缪尔·阿利托将不参与本案审理。信函未说明他回避的理由。在2025年的财务披露中，阿利托报告称持有康菲石油和菲利普斯66两家能源公司的股票，但未列出埃克森美孚或森科能源的个人持股。
宗教自由：圣玛丽天主教教区诉罗伊
11月3日，大法官们将审理一起涉及科罗拉多州一所天主教幼儿园的案件，该幼儿园声称自己被非法排除在州全民学前教育项目之外。这是最高法院最新一次审议宗教实体参与国家资助项目的纠纷。
科罗拉多州的项目为家庭提供资金，让4岁儿童可以选择自己心仪的幼儿园。该项目允许该州所有儿童在进入幼儿园前每周最多获得15小时的免费学前教育。家庭可以将孩子送往公立或私立幼儿园，或送往宗教机构或家庭托管机构。
设立该项目的法律包含一项反歧视条款，要求所有学校确保儿童享有平等的入学机会，无论其或其父母的宗教信仰、种族、民族、性取向、性别认同、无住房状况或收入水平如何。
2023年，负责管理30多所天主教幼儿园的丹佛总教区申请豁免全民学前教育项目的反歧视规则，以便仅招收信奉天主教教义的家庭，包括在性别认同和性取向方面符合教会教义的家庭。
但科罗拉多州幼儿部拒绝提供这一便利。作为回应，丹佛总教区、两个教区以及一名子女就读教区学校的家庭提起诉讼，辩称他们有权根据第一修正案的自由实施条款获得豁免。
原告方表示，由于全民学前教育项目为反歧视要求设置了豁免，该项目并非中立且普遍适用的。最高法院在1990年的“就业division诉史密斯案”判决中指出，负担宗教自由实施的法律，只要是中立且普遍适用的，通常不违反第一修正案。
2024年6月，联邦地区法院支持州政府一方，美国第十巡回上诉法院维持了该判决，认定该项目的反歧视规则“与第一修正案相契合”，并未侵犯原告的宗教自由权利。
枪支权利：比拉蒙特斯诉库克县与格兰特诉希金斯
这是继最高法院2022年具有里程碑意义的扩大枪支权利判决后引发的最新一起第二修正案纠纷，涉及禁止AR-15式及类似半自动武器的州法律。
这两起将于12月2日进行辩论的案件，分别涉及康涅狄格州的一项法律和伊利诺伊州库克县的一项法令。库克县的禁令已实施近20年，而康涅狄格州则在2012年桑迪胡克小学大规模枪击事件后收紧了半自动枪支管制规定。
目前已有超过10个州和哥伦比亚特区禁止AR-15式半自动武器。
在伊利诺伊州和康涅狄格州的这两起案件中，下级法院均支持了禁令。上诉法院均适用了最高法院2022年确立的判断枪支限制合宪性的新标准，要求政府证明某项法律符合美国历史上的枪支管制传统。
当时的最高法院判决首次确认，第二修正案保护公民在户外携带枪支的权利。此后多年，最高法院已受理多起针对长期存在的联邦和州枪支法律的挑战。
2024年，最高法院维持了一项禁止受家庭暴力限制令约束的人持有枪支的联邦法律。同年，最高法院裁定，根据第二修正案，政府不得起诉惯常吸食大麻者持有枪支。最高法院还推翻了夏威夷州一项要求隐蔽持枪许可证持有者在将枪支带入对公众开放的私人财产前必须获得许可的法律。
最高法院此前曾驳回对马里兰州和伊利诺伊州禁止AR-15式及其他半自动武器法律的挑战，使这些限制措施得以保留。
父母权利：国际道德护理伙伴组织诉弗格森
12月7日，最高法院将审理一起涉及华盛顿州法律的案件，该州法律扩大了青少年庇护所无需通知离家出走青少年父母的例外情形。
根据其中一项新例外条款，如果一名因性别烦躁而寻求或接受治疗（包括心理和身体健康服务）的儿童来到庇护所，庇护所无需通知其父母，而应通知儿童、青年和家庭服务部。
新法案还规定，如果离家青少年在未经父母同意的情况下寻求医疗干预，该部门必须在庇护所为其提供此类服务。
最高法院面临的问题是，父母是否有权提起诉讼挑战华盛顿州的这项法律。本案涉及的五组父母均称自己的孩子曾经历性别烦躁，他们指控该法律侵犯了他们指导子女照料和抚养的宪法权利。
2024年，联邦地区法院驳回了他们的案件，认定父母缺乏法律起诉资格。美国第九巡回上诉法院维持了该判决。
亚利桑那州选举规则：共和党全国委员会诉“我的家庭投票”组织
在特朗普总统推动联邦选民登记需提供公民身份证明要求之际，最高法院将审议亚利桑那州的一项规则，该规则要求潜在选民在使用州表格登记投票时提供公民身份证明。该案还涉及该州清理选民名册的程序。联邦法律规定，任何州系统性将选民从选民登记名单中移除的程序，必须在选举前90天完成。
辩论定于12月8日举行。
亚利桑那州议会于2022年批准了新的选举政策。但此后不久，包括民主党全国委员会在内的民主党团体提起诉讼，试图阻止这些政策的实施。挑战者辩称，这些要求违反了《全国选民登记法》，或与亚利桑那州国务卿与马里科帕县记录员2018年达成的同意令相抵触。
联邦地区法院表示，根据该同意令，当地选举官员不得拒绝缺少公民身份证明的州选民登记表格。法院还表示，根据《全国选民登记法》，亚利桑那州不得在选举前90天系统性取消选民登记。
美国第九巡回上诉法院去年维持了该判决。
亚利桑那州的选举规则此前也曾提交至最高法院，不过处于案件的更早阶段。2024年8月，最高法院允许该州在大选期间执行公民身份证明要求。但最高法院未允许该州执行总统选举或邮寄投票所需的公民身份证明规则。
第三国驱逐：国土安全部诉D.V.D.
特朗普政府于2025年3月实施了一项政策，允许迅速将移民驱逐至其并非原产国的第三国，前提是这些国家已提供可信保证，确保被驱逐者不会遭受迫害或酷刑。
政府辩称，第三国驱逐是驱逐包括有犯罪记录在内的特定移民的“必要工具”。但去年，四名已收到最终驱逐令的移民提起集体诉讼，辩称如果移民在被驱逐至第三国前未获得足够通知和机会质疑驱逐决定，他们的正当程序权利将受到侵犯。
波士顿的一名联邦地区法官裁定，国土安全部的指导方针可能侵犯了他们的正当程序权利，并下令移民官员向移民提供书面的第三国驱逐通知，以及至少10天的“有意义机会”来主张对被驱逐的担忧。
该案在更早阶段便被提交至最高法院，最高法院允许特朗普政府在诉讼继续期间恢复对第三国的驱逐。
随后，今年2月，波士顿的法官裁定特朗普政府在未向移民提供通知的情况下将其驱逐至第三国的政策非法，并称必须撤销该政策。联邦上诉法院上个月基本维持了该判决，称移民当局必须为被拘留者提供“有意义的机会”，对其被驱逐至非本国国家的决定提出异议。
司法部已向最高法院提起紧急上诉，请求阻止地区法院的判决。
最高法院批准了这一请求，允许国土安全部暂时恢复第三国驱逐，但同时表示将对该案的法律实质问题作出裁决。辩论将于12月9日举行。
最高法院已要求司法部和移民律师回答的问题包括，政府关于第三国驱逐的指导方针是否违反联邦移民法、宪法正当程序条款以及反酷刑保护条款。
移民拘留：罗尼诉巴博萨·达库尼亚
本案的争议焦点是特朗普政府的一项政策：对在驱逐程序中的非法入境移民实施无需保释听证会的拘留。
美国移民及海关执法局去年重新解释了1990年代的一项移民法，并认定无论非法入境者在美国居住多年，只要非法入境，就不再有资格获得保释释放，由此推出了这项政策。
此后，作为总统打击移民行动的一部分，数万名移民被移民当局拘留并无限期关押。许多人已向联邦法院提交请愿书，质疑其拘留行为并寻求释放或听证会。全国范围内已有数百名联邦法官批准了这些请求，并驳回了特朗普政府的政策。
两家联邦上诉法院允许对非公民实施无需保释的强制拘留，但另有九家法院作出了不利于特朗普政府的裁决。
最高法院审理的案件涉及一名巴西男子里卡多·阿帕雷西多·巴博萨·达库尼亚，他20多年前非法来到美国。根据法庭文件，巴博萨·达库尼亚从未被定罪。他于2016年申请庇护并获得了有效的工作许可。
但去年在马萨诸塞州的一次交通拦截中，巴博萨·达库尼亚被移民及海关执法局官员拘留，国土安全部对其启动了驱逐程序。
巴博萨·达库尼亚申请保释听证会，但移民法官以根据联邦移民法条款，他应接受无需保释的强制拘留为由驳回了该请求。
随后，他向联邦法院提交请愿书，称其在未获得保释听证会的情况下被拘留是非法的，违反了宪法正当程序条款。一名联邦法官支持巴博萨·达库尼亚，美国第二巡回上诉法院维持了该判决，驳回了特朗普政府的强制拘留政策。
在判决中，第二巡回上诉法院的法官小组表示，如果接受政府对移民法的解释，将“给我们的移民拘留系统和社会带来巨大冲击，加剧本已过度拥挤的拘留基础设施的紧张状况，关押数百万人，拆散家庭，并扰乱社区”。
本案的辩论可能将于明年初举行。
更多重大案件即将到来
最高法院还可能决定受理几起涉及特朗普政策及其第二任期内采取行动的新案件。
代理总检察长D.约翰·索尔已请求大法官们裁决国防部禁止跨性别者参军政策的合宪性。一家上诉法院裁定该禁令歧视跨性别者。但特朗普政府辩称，军方有权决定谁可以参军，不应被禁止行使这一权力。
代表美国政府在最高法院进行辩护的代理总检察长，还就下级法院阻止特朗普任命纽约州和内华达州代理美国检察官的判决提起上诉。
特朗普政府试图将其盟友任命为这些办公室的二把手——第一助理美国检察官职位，随后将其提拔为代理美国检察官。但下级法院表示，这些检察官——奥尔巴尼的约翰·萨科内和内华达州的西加尔·查塔赫——的任命非法，因为在美国检察官职位出现空缺时，他们并未担任第一助理职务。
特朗普也曾使用同样的机制，绕过参议院确认程序，将其心仪人选任命为新泽西州和洛杉矶美国检察官办公室的负责人。但下级法院均认定这些任命非法。
索尔还请求最高法院裁决特朗普在美墨边境有效暂停庇护申请的努力是否合法。
特朗普以个人身份请求最高法院审查一起源于他对E.让·卡罗尔发表言论的8330万美元诽谤判决，以及总统是否对这些言论享有豁免权。
除涉及总统的案件外，最高法院还可能受理对德克萨斯州和路易斯安那州要求在公立学校教室展示十诫法律的挑战。美国第五巡回上诉法院维持了德克萨斯州的这项法律。
最高法院还被要求审理一起与军事检察官和2001年9月11日恐怖袭击两名嫌疑人达成的认罪协议相关的法律纠纷，其中包括被指控为袭击主谋的哈立德·谢赫·穆罕默德。
Supreme Court gears up for new term with major cases on climate change, immigration and guns
2026-10-04T07:00:16-0400 / CBS News
Washington — The start of the Supreme Court’s new term is quickly approaching, with cases involving climate change, President Trump’s immigration policies and the Second Amendment among the most high-profile disputes the justices will hear in the coming months.
But waiting in the wings at the Supreme Court are several legal battles involving Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda, which will be discussed by the justices in forthcoming closed-door conferences and, if taken up by the court, decided by the summer of 2027.
The Supreme Court kicks off its term Monday with arguments involving a lawsuit filed in state court by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, that seeks to hold energy companies accountable for the effects of global climate change.
Here are the big cases that the Supreme Court is poised to decide so far in its upcoming term, which begins Oct. 5:
Climate change: Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County
On the first day of the new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a dispute between Boulder and two energy companies, Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil.
The question before the Supreme Court is a technical one: Whether federal law prevents Boulder County from suing energy companies in state court and claiming that the sale and allegedly deceptive marketing of fossil fuels violates state law.
The Supreme Court is seen at day’s end on Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The outcome of the case could have significant ramifications for dozens of similar lawsuits brought by states and localities that seek to hold fossil-fuel producers accountable for the effects of climate change. A decision in favor of the energy companies would block Boulder’s lawsuit, which is still in its early stages and seeks money damages.
Lawyers for Exxon and Suncor warn that if the Supreme Court allows these suits to move forward and they are ultimately successful, they would effectively impose a carbon tax on fossil-fuel producers and “bankrupt” the industry.
In filings with the Supreme Court, they called climate change “one of the most complex public-policy challenges of our time,” resulting from the buildup of greenhouse gases that are emitted by every state and every country. Those emissions, Suncor and Exxon lawyers said, “cannot be unmixed and traced to their individual sources.”
The case landed at the Supreme Court on appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court, which allowed Boulder’s lawsuit to proceed. The high court will also consider whether it has jurisdiction to review that decision.
The energy companies warned that if that ruling is upheld and adopted on a nationwide scale, it would give the green light to all 50 states and their municipalities “to ask local courts to establish countless, conflicting climate policies for the Nation.”
Lawyers for Boulder County argued that the Constitution allows states to address the harms that arise within their own borders. Whether those harms should be better addressed at the federal level is a decision that rests with Congress, they said.
The county officials said the energy companies rushed to the Supreme Court and instead should wait until the state court has issued its final decision in the case before seeking review.
“That climate change is a global problem does not disempower states from redressing its local harms either,” they wrote. “This litigation is not an attempt to solve climate change; it merely asks that petitioners bear their fair share of local costs incurred in part because of their tortious conduct.”
Justice Samuel Alito will not participate in the case, according to a letter sent to lawyers for the parties Monday. The letter did not include a reason for his recusal. In his financial disclosure for 2025, Alito reported owning stocks in two energy companies, ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, but did not list individual holdings in Exxon or Suncor.
Religious liberty: St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy
On Nov. 3, the justices will convene for arguments in a case involving a Catholic preschool in Colorado that argues it is unlawfully excluded from the state’s universal preschool program. The dispute is the latest in which the Supreme Court will consider participation by religious entities in state-funded programs.
Colorado’s program provides state funding for families to send their 4-year-olds to the preschool of their choosing. The program allows all children in the state to receive up to 15 hours of free preschool each week before they enter kindergarten. Families can send their children to public or private preschools, or to faith-based or in-home providers.
The law creating the program includes a nondiscrimination provision, which requires all schools to ensure children have the equal opportunity to attend regardless of their or their parents’ religious affiliation, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing or income level.
In 2023, the Archdiocese of Denver, which oversees more than 30 Catholic preschools, requested an exemption from the universal preschool program’s nondiscrimination rule so it could admit only participating families who adhere to the Catholic Church’s teachings, including on gender identity and sexual orientation.
But the Colorado Department of Early Childhood declined to provide the accommodation. In response, the Archdiocese, two parishes and a family with children who attend parish schools sued and argued they were entitled to an exemption under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
The plaintiffs said because the universal preschool program created exemptions to the nondiscrimination requirement, it was not neutral and generally applicable. The Supreme Court said in a 1990 decision called Employment Division v. Smith that laws burdening the free exercise of religion generally do not violate the First Amendment as long as they’re neutral and generally applicable.
A federal district court sided with the state in June 2024, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld that decision, finding that the program’s nondiscrimination rule “exists in harmony with the First Amendment” and doesn’t violate the plaintiffs’ free exercise rights.
Gun rights: Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins
This latest Second Amendment dispute to arise following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision expanding gun rights involves state laws banning AR-15s and similar semiautomatic weapons.
The two cases, which will be argued Dec. 2, involve a Connecticut law and an ordinance in Cook County, Illinois. Cook County’s prohibition was put in place nearly 20 years ago, while Connecticut tightened its rules for semiautomatic firearms after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
More than 10 states and the District of Columbia prohibit AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons.
In both of the cases from Illinois and Connecticut, lower courts upheld the bans. The appeals courts each applied the new standard for determining the constitutionality of gun restrictions that the Supreme Court laid out in 2022, which requires the government to show that a law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
In its ruling then, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home. The justices have been asked to take up a number of challenges to longstanding federal and state gun laws in the years since.
In 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. Then, last year, it said that under the Second Amendment, the government cannot prosecute a habitual marijuana user for having a firearm. The high court also struck down a Hawaii law that required concealed-carry permit holders to receive permission before bringing their firearms onto private property that is open to the public.
The Supreme Court had turned away challenges to laws from Maryland and Illinois banning AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons, leaving those restrictions in place.
Parental rights: International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson
On Dec. 7, the Supreme Court will consider a case that involves laws from Washington state that expanded exceptions for when a youth shelter has to notify parents of a runaway teenager.
Under one of the new exceptions, if a child seeking or receiving medical treatments for gender dysphoria, including mental and physical health services, arrives at a shelter, it does not have to inform the parents that their child is there and instead must notify the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
The new measure also says the department must offer runaway teenagers those medical interventions at shelters if they seek that care without their parents’ consent.
The question before the Supreme Court is whether parents have standing to file lawsuits challenging Washington’s laws. The five sets of parents involved in the case all have children who they said have experienced gender dysphoria, and they allege the laws violate their constitutional right to direct the care and upbringing of their children.
A federal district court dismissed their case in 2024, finding that the parents lacked legal standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.
Arizona’s voting rules: Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
Amid President Trump’s push for a federal proof-of-citizenship requirement to register to vote, the Supreme Court will weigh an Arizona rule that requires would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote using a state form. The case also involves the state’s procedures for cleaning up its voter rolls. Federal law says any state program to systematically remove people from their voter registration lists must be completed 90 days before an election.
Arguments are set for Dec. 8.
Arizona’s legislature approved the new voting policies in 2022. But soon after, Democratic groups including the Democratic National Committee filed lawsuits seeking to block their enforcement. The challengers argued that the requirements violated or were preempted by the National Voting Registration Act and a 2018 consent decree between Arizona’s secretary of state and the Maricopa County recorder.
A federal district court said that under the consent decree, local election officials could not reject state voter registration forms that lacked proof of citizenship. The court also said that under the NVRA, Arizona couldn’t systematically cancel voter registrations within 90 days of an election.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision last year.
Arizona’s voting rules have been before the Supreme Court before, though at an earlier stage in the case. In August 2024, the Supreme Court allowed the state to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the general election. But the high court did not let the state enforce rules requiring proof-of-citizenship to vote for president or by mail.
Third-country deportations: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.
The Trump administration implemented a policy in March 2025 that allowed for the swift removal of migrants to countries that they do not come from — so-called third countries — if those nations have provided credible assurances that deportees will not be persecuted or tortured.
The administration has argued that the third-country removals are an “essential tool” to remove certain migrants, including those who have criminal records. But last year, a group of four migrants subject to final orders of removal filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that their due-process rights would be violated if they were denied sufficient notice and an opportunity to challenge their removals before they were deported to a third country.
A federal district judge in Boston ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s guidance likely violated their due process rights, and he ordered immigration officials to provide migrants with written notice of the third country of removal, as well as a “meaningful opportunity” — at least 10 days — to assert a fear of removal.
The case ended up at the Supreme Court during an earlier stage, and the high court allowed the Trump administration to resume the deportations to third countries while litigation continued.
Then, in February, the judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration’s policy of deporting migrants to third countries without giving them notice is unlawful and said it must be set aside. A federal appeals court largely upheld that decision last month and said immigration authorities must offer detainees “a meaningful opportunity to contest” their deportations to countries that are not their own.
The Justice Department filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court and asked it to block the district court’s decision.
The high court granted that request, allowing DHS to resume third-country removals for now, but also said it would decide the legal merits of the case. Arguments will take place Dec. 9.
Among the questions that the Supreme Court has asked the Justice Department and lawyers for the migrants to answer is whether the administration’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under federal immigration law, the Constitution’s Due Process Clause and protections against torture.
Immigration detentions: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha
At issue in this case is the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants in the country illegally during their removal proceedings without access to bond hearings.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement rolled out the policy last year when it reinterpreted an immigration law from the 1990s and determined detainees facing removal are no longer eligible to be released on bond if they entered the country unlawfully, even if they have been in the U.S. for years.
Since then, as part of the president’s crackdown on immigration, tens of thousands of immigrants have been detained by immigration authorities and held indefinitely. Many have filed petitions in federal court challenging their detentions and seeking release or a hearing. Hundreds of federal judges across the country have granted those requests and rejected the Trump administration’s policy.
Two federal appeals courts have allowed noncitizens to be subject to mandatory detention without bond, but nine others have ruled against the Trump administration.
The case before the Supreme Court involves a Brazilian man, Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who came to the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago. Barbosa da Cunha has never been convicted of a crime, according to court papers. He applied for asylum in 2016 and was granted a valid work permit.
But last year, during a traffic stop in Massachusetts, Barbosa da Cunha was taken into custody by ICE officers, and the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him.
Barbosa da Cunha requested a bond hearing, but an immigration judge denied the request on the grounds that he was subject to mandatory detention without the possibility of bond under a provision of federal immigration law.
He then filed a petition in federal court alleging that his detention without access to a bond hearing was illegal and a violation of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. A federal judge sided with Barbosa da Cunha, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision, rejecting the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy.
In its decision, the 2nd Circuit panel of judges said accepting the administration’s interpretation of immigration law would “send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society, straining our already overcrowded detention infrastructure, incarcerating millions, separating families, and disrupting communities.”
Arguments in the case will likely be held early next year.
More big cases looming
The Supreme Court could also decide to take up several new cases that involve Mr. Trump’s policies and actions taken during his second term.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has asked the justices to decide the constitutionality of the Department of Defense’s policy prohibiting transgender people from the military. An appeals court ruled that the ban discriminates against transgender individuals. But the Trump administration argues that the military has the power to decide who can serve in the armed forces and cannot be prohibited from exercising that authority.
The solicitor general, who argues on behalf of the U.S. government before the Supreme Court, has also appealed lower court decisions that have blocked Mr. Trump’s appointments of acting U.S. attorneys in New York and Nevada.
The Trump administration has sought to install his allies as second-in-command, a position called first assistant U.S. attorney, of those offices and then elevate them to serve as the acting U.S. attorneys. But lower courts have said that those prosecutors, John Sarcone in Albany and Sigal Chattah in Nevada, were unlawfully appointed since they were not serving as the first assistant when the U.S. attorney position became vacant.
Mr. Trump has used the same mechanism to put his preferred picks atop U.S. attorney offices in New Jersey and Los Angeles, circumventing the Senate confirmation process required for those prosecutor positions. But lower courts have all said the appointments were unlawful.
Sauer has also asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Mr. Trump’s efforts to effectively suspend asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is lawful.
Mr. Trump, in his personal capacity, has asked the Supreme Court to review an $83.3 million defamation judgment stemming from statements he made about E. Jean Carroll and whether presidential immunity applies to those remarks.
Separate from the cases involving the president, the Supreme Court could also take up challenges to laws from Texas and Louisiana that require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has upheld the Texas law.
The high court has also been asked to take up a legal fight over a plea agreement reached by military prosecutors and two of the men allegedly behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, including accused architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.