特朗普出席了周三的口头辩论，表明他认为本案的重要性不言而喻
2026年4月1日 下午2:57 美国东部时间 / 福克斯新闻
作者：布雷安娜·德普isch、比尔·米尔斯、香农·布里姆 福克斯新闻
周三，多数最高法院大法官似乎对唐纳德·特朗普总统终止所谓“出生公民权”的努力持怀疑态度，他们在口头辩论中表达了对一项行政命令的合法性和执行力度的担忧，该命令可能重塑数百万美国人的公民身份保护。
本案即特朗普诉芭芭拉案的争议焦点，是特朗普在重新就职首日签署的一项行政命令的合法性，该命令旨在终止几乎所有在美国出生的无证父母子女或持有美国临时非移民签证的父母子女的自动公民身份。
这起高风险案件将超过一个世纪以来的行政部门行动、最高法院先例以及宪法本身的文本——更具体地说，是第十四修正案的公民条款——推到了聚光灯下，特朗普政府认为该条款在通过后的100多年里遭到了误读。
唐纳德·特朗普总统亲自出席了部分口头辩论，创造了历史，也表明他一直在密切关注这一议题。
尽管如此，多数大法官似乎准备否决特朗普的这项命令。在一场颇具启示意义的交流中，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在辩论开始后不久告诉美国副检察长D.约翰·索尔，他认为特朗普政府的一项核心论点“怪异离谱”。
联邦法官叫停特朗普针对所有婴儿的出生公民权禁令，考验下级法院权力
2026年4月1日，华盛顿特区，在美国总统唐纳德·特朗普预计抵达前，一名示威者出现在美国最高法院外。（阿尔·德拉戈/盖蒂图片社）
罗伯茨指出，他很难理解特朗普政府关于第十四修正案中出生公民权例外情况的法律立场，并提到他们援引了大使子女、军舰上出生的儿童等有限群体的例子。“我不太清楚你怎么能从如此微小且特殊的例子推导出这么大的群体，”罗伯茨说道。
“我们如今身处一个新世界，”索尔回应罗伯茨道。
索尔还辩称，“80亿人只要坐一趟飞机，就能生下一名美国公民子女”。
“这是一个新世界，但宪法还是那部宪法，”罗伯茨回应道。
这场交流预示了最高法院多数大法官普遍不愿维持该行政命令的态势。
几位被视为本案关键摇摆票的保守派大法官似乎也抱有同样的疑虑。
大法官塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯似乎是本案中最有可能支持特朗普的两位大法官。
“第十四修正案的辩论中有多少与移民有关？”托马斯询问索尔，并指出该修正案旨在给予 newly-freed slaves（解放黑奴）公民身份，并不一定适用于新抵达移民的子女。
不出所料，辩论的核心围绕1898年最高法院“美国诉黄锦辉案”确立的先例展开，该案确立了“居住”或在美国本土出生的人享有出生公民权的保护。
大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特、布雷特·卡瓦诺和尼尔·戈萨奇对特朗普政府的论点持怀疑态度，尽管程度各不相同。他们利用发言时间就先例、执法以及公民条款文本和国会通过的法律等关键问题向索尔施压。
卡瓦诺援引了1952年《移民和国籍法》的条款，指出该法案的文本与第十四修正案以及1898年案件的文本基本一致。
“如果国会想要在出生公民权的范围或公民身份的范围上与黄锦辉案的裁决相悖，人们可能会期望它使用不同的措辞，”他说道，在简短的来回辩论后告诉索尔：“我看不出这作为法律宪法解释事项的相关性，”他在短暂交锋后补充道。
司法部称：特朗普最早将于本月开始执行出生公民权命令
2026年国情咨文演讲期间，美国最高法院首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和其他大法官在场。（温·麦克纳米/盖蒂图片社）
辩论即将结束时，卡瓦诺对美国公民自由联盟的律师表示：“如果我们在黄锦辉案的问题上同意你的观点，那可能只是一份简短的意见书。”
他表示，该案凸显了关于法律应如何解读的核心问题：是仅局限于立法者通过法律时设想的情形，还是应适用于未来的情况，即便当时这些情况难以想象。
阿利托提到了他已故的前同事、最高法院大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚的论点。
他说，斯卡利亚曾“设想过一部早在微波炉问世前就制定的旧盗窃法案。后来有人因盗窃微波炉被指控犯罪，”他补充道。“这名被告会说，‘好吧，我不能根据这部法案定罪，因为微波炉在当时并不存在。’”
“这里有一个通用规则，我们应将其适用于未来的情形，”阿利托说道，索尔对此表示强烈赞同。
托马斯在辩论中发言较少，但似乎也认同政府对第十四修正案的狭义解读。
大法官们也向代表移民出庭的美国公民自由联盟法律主任塞西莉亚·王提出了尖锐问题，不过他们的问题更多是为了澄清细节，而非质疑核心论点。
王女士周三辩称，出生公民权“被载入”第十四修正案，她称其确立了一项“固定的明确规则”，“为我国的发展和繁荣做出了贡献”。
“它源于文本和历史，切实可行，还能防止操纵，”王说道。“这项行政命令在所有这些方面都不合格。”
最高法院暗示可能限制《投票权法案》关键条款
2026年4月1日，华盛顿特区，在美国最高法院外，民众举行示威，为“特朗普诉芭芭拉案”的口头辩论造势。该案将裁定唐纳德·特朗普总统终止出生公民权的行政命令是否违宪。（阿尔·德拉戈/盖蒂图片社）
此次口头辩论之际，唐纳德·特朗普总统在其第二任总统任期内采取了强硬的移民执法立场，包括寻求终止出生公民权——这也是他在2024年成功连任竞选期间宣扬的议题之一。
特朗普的出席突显了此案对他的重要性，也标志着美国历史上首次有在职美国总统出席最高法院的口头辩论。
特朗普身着深色西装、系着红色领带，按照最高法院的严格规定，在辩论全程保持安静，似乎全神贯注地聆听索尔的陈述。司法部长帕姆·邦迪和商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克也一同出席。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在辩论期间并未理会特朗普，整个程序也没有出现任何喧嚣或中断。
索尔陈述完案情后不久，特朗普便离开了法院，离开时并未公开发表评论。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
若特朗普胜诉，将对美国移民政策产生颠覆性改变，并颠覆长期以来的公民身份观念，特朗普及其盟友认为这些观念是错误的。批评人士则认为该命令违宪且史无前例，警告称如果付诸实施，每年可能影响约15万名在美国出生的非公民父母所生的子女。
最高法院预计将于6月底作出裁决。
布雷安娜·德普isch是福克斯新闻数字频道的全国政治记者，负责报道特朗普政府，重点关注司法部、联邦调查局及其他全国性新闻。她此前曾在《华盛顿观察家报》和《华盛顿邮报》报道全国政治，作品还见于《政客杂志》《科罗拉多公报》等媒体。你可以通过Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com向布雷安娜发送爆料线索，或在X平台关注她@breanne_dep。
Supreme Court skeptical of Trump birthright citizenship order, Roberts questions argument in landmark case
Trump attended oral arguments Wednesday, signaling just how important he views the case at hand
April 1, 2026 2:57pm EDT / Fox News
By Breanne Deppisch , Bill Mears , Shannon Bream, Fox News
A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s effort to end so-called birthright citizenship, using oral arguments to cite concerns over the legality and enforcement of an executive order that could reshape protections for millions of Americans.
At issue in the case, Trump v. Barbara, is the legality of an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office, which seeks to end automatic citizenship for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S.
The high-stakes case brought into focus more than a century of executive branch action, Supreme Court precedent, and the text of the Constitution itself — or, more specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment — which the administration argues has been misinterpreted in the more than 100 years since its passage.
President Donald Trump attended a portion of the oral arguments in person, making history and signaling just how closely he has been monitoring the issue.
Still, the majority of justices appeared poised to block Trump’s order. In what proved to be a telling exchange, Chief Justice John Roberts told U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer shortly after arguments began that he viewed a key argument from the Trump administration as “quirky.”
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS
A demonstrator is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s expected arrival on April 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C.(Al Drago/Getty Images)
Roberts noted he was having a hard time making sense of the Trump administration’s legal position on the 14th Amendment’s exceptions to birthright citizenship, noting that they cite examples such as children of ambassadors, and children on warships, among other limited groups. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts said.
“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer told Roberts.
Sauer also argued that “8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen,”
“It’s a new world, but it’s the same constitution,” Roberts said in response.
The exchange previewed what proved to be an overarching reluctance from justices on the high court to allow the executive order to stand.
The doubts appeared to be shared by several conservative justices seen as key swing votes in deciding the case.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared the most likely justices to side with Trump in the case.
“How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” Thomas asked Sauer, noting that the amendment was designed to give newly-freed slaves citizenship, and not necessarily applied to children of newly arrived immigrants.
As expected, arguments focused heavily on precedent set in the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established birthright citizenship protections for persons “domiciled,” or born on U.S. soil.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, albeit to varying degrees.
They used their time to press Sauer on key issues centered on precedent, enforcement, and the text of the citizenship clause and laws passed by Congress.
Kavanaugh cited the passage of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), noting that it essentially mirrors the text of the 14th Amendment and text of the 1898 case.
“One might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Wong Kim Ark on what the scope of birthright citizenship, or the scope of citizenship, should be,” he said, telling Sauer after a brief back-and-forth: “I am not seeing the relevance as a legal constitutional interpretative matter,” he told Sauer, after a brief back-and-forth.
TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices on the high court are seen during President Donald Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address.(Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Shortly before arguments adjourned, Kavanaugh told the ACLU’s lawyer: “If we did agree with you on Wong Kim Ark, that could be just a short opinion.”
The case, he said, brings to the forefront questions about how laws should be read, and if they should be limited only to situations that lawmakers envisioned at the time of their passage, or whether they should be applicable in future situations, even if the situations were unimaginable at the time.
Alito pointed to an argument from his former colleague, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia, he said, had “imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven. And then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven,” he added. “And this fellow says, ‘Well, I can’t be convicted under this, because the microwave oven didn’t exist at that time.’”
“There’s a general rule there, and you apply it to future applications,” Alito said, to which Sauer emphatically agreed.
Thomas, though less vocal during arguments, also appeared to embrace the narrower reading of the 14th Amendment shared by the administration.
Justices also posed tough questions to the ACLU’s legal director, Cecillia Wang, who argued the case on behalf of migrants. Their questions focused more on clarifying details, however, than they did on the underlying arguments.
Wang,for her part, argued Wednesday that birthright citizenship is “enshrined” in the 14th Amendment, and sets what she described as a “fixed, bright-line rule [that] has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation.”
“It comes from text and history. It is workable, and it prevents manipulation,” Wang said. “The executive order fails on all those counts.”
SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE
People demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C., ahead of oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, which will determine if President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional.(Al Drago/Getty Images)
The oral arguments come as President Donald Trump has embraced a hardline posture on immigration enforcement in his second presidential term — including seeking to end birthright citizenship, an issue on which he campaigned on in his successful 2024 reelection campaign.
Trump’s attendance underscored the importance of the case to him and marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting U.S. president has attended arguments before the high court.
Clad in a red tie and dark suit, Trump was quiet for the duration of oral arguments — in accordance with strict Supreme Court rules — and appeared focused on the arguments made by Sauer. Attorney General Pam Bondi was also in attendance, as was Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
Chief Justice John Roberts did not acknowledge Trump during arguments, and proceedings were otherwise conducted without fanfare or interruption.
Trump left the court shortly after Sauer presented his case, and did not comment publicly as he departed.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship, which Trump and his allies argue are misguided. Critics argue that the order is unconstitutional and unprecedented — warning that, if implemented, it could impact an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually to noncitizens.
A decision from the high court is expected by late June.
Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.
发表回复