2026-04-02T13:58:25.330Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：琼·比斯库皮奇，CNN最高法院首席分析师
2小时前
发布于2026年4月2日，美国东部时间上午9:58
当首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和其他八位大法官于周三就美国身份这一根本性议题登上最高法院法庭席位时，他们并未提及唐纳德·特朗普出现在法庭内这一情况。
这并不出人意料：周三是现代历史上首次有美国总统出席口头辩论。但特朗普是以诉讼当事人和旁听者的身份到场，并未担任任何正式职务。
随后，罗伯茨做出了一个令人意外的举动，表明了自己的立场。
这位首席大法官在辩论中向来行事谨慎。在备受瞩目的案件中，他常常发出模棱两可的信号，保留多种选择。
但在这场意义重大的庭审中，罗伯茨明确表达了对特朗普立场的质疑——该立场将颠覆一个多世纪以来的宪法历史与传统。这位首席大法官对特朗普政府提出的关于第十四修正案公民出生地条款适用范围的另类观点表示怀疑。
相关报道：这张法庭速写展示了2026年4月1日周三，在美国华盛顿特区最高法院，美国副检察长D.约翰·绍尔和唐纳德·特朗普总统就特朗普终止自动公民出生地身份的行政命令进行口头辩论的场景。达娜·弗克特伦
最高法院辩论特朗普终止自动公民出生地身份举措的要点 9分钟阅读
罗伯茨尤其驳斥了美国副检察长约翰·绍尔的论点——绍尔称当下的移民问题需要改变“无论父母移民身份如何，几乎所有在美国出生的儿童都能成为美国公民”的普遍认知。
绍尔呼应特朗普的说法，辩称“生育旅游的泛滥产业”导致“来自潜在敌对国家的不计其数的外国人”抵达美国生育子女。
“我们如今身处一个全新的世界，”绍尔对罗伯茨说道，“80亿人口只需搭乘一次航班，就能生下拥有美国公民身份的孩子。”
“没错，世界变了，”罗伯茨回应道，“但宪法没变。”
这种语气对于以措辞审慎著称的首席大法官而言格外尖锐。他清楚这起案件引发了超乎寻常的关注。电视和广播电台对庭审进行了全程直播。法庭内所有座位及旁听区的额外座椅均座无虚席。在专为九位大法官的配偶和宾客预留的专属区域中，就有特朗普的批评者、演员罗伯特·德尼罗。
整场辩论时长超过两小时，大法官们似乎并未形成多数意见，以重新解释第十四修正案的既定解读。该修正案规定：“所有在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖的人，都是合众国的和他们居住州的公民。”历史上，仅有少数几类儿童可获得豁免，例如外国大使所生子女或入侵军队成员的子女。
为迎合下级法院法官反对政府的普遍立场，绍尔抓住“受其管辖”这一短语，辩称任何非法或临时身处美国境内的人，例如持学生签证者，都未充分受美国管辖。
罗伯茨和其他关键保守派大法官不仅对这一宪法依据提出质疑，还对该立场的实操性提出挑战——该立场需要调查儿童的父母身份。
https://www.cnn.com/
美国最高法院就标志性案件审议公民出生地身份的未来
3:04 • 来源：CNN
美国最高法院就标志性案件审议公民出生地身份的未来
3:04
“那你会如何处理普通法中所谓的‘弃婴’问题？”大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特问道，“问题在于，如果你要审查父母及其居住意向，就必须同时裁决居住情况和居留意图。要是你不知道孩子的父母是谁怎么办？”（本案提交的部分带有宗教色彩的辩护状中提及了对可能被遗弃的新生儿的担忧。）
“确实存在边缘情况，”当巴雷特提出一系列棘手的假设场景时，绍尔回应道。
辗转就座并提前离场
周三特朗普的到场并未让他获得任何特殊优待，无论是他在法庭内的座位，还是法官席上的明显共识。
特朗普在庭审开始前约10分钟抵达，被悄悄引导至法庭旁听区，位于最高法院律师预留区域之后。特朗普及其随行人员，包括司法部长帕姆·邦迪和商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克，坐在普通旁听区的第一排。法庭内通常保持安静，但当特朗普身着深色西装、系着标志性红色领带就座时，旁听者开始窃窃私语，纷纷伸长脖子张望。
他还没完全坐定。就从排尾换到了排头，或许是为了能更清楚地看到法官席。等待庭审开始时，特朗普环顾四周，似乎在欣赏这座富丽堂皇的场馆：天花板上带有华丽的玫瑰花纹饰，墙壁上雕刻着摩西、所罗门及其他被称为“历史上伟大立法者”的精美大理石浮雕。
相关报道：CNN 美国移民须知图表版 3分钟阅读
特朗普的政策和个人行为自其第一任期起就屡屡成为重大诉讼的对象，从第一任期早期涉及对某些多数穆斯林国家旅行禁令的特朗普诉夏威夷州案，到考验其个人刑事起诉豁免权的特朗普诉美国案，再到涉及下级法院能否对其有争议政策发布广泛禁令的特朗普诉卡萨案。（特朗普在这些案件中均胜诉。）
他此前从未到场旁听过此类口头辩论，尽管特朗普去年11月曾宣称会出席其针对外国商品全面关税的争议庭审，但最终在最后一刻决定缺席。（特朗普在该案中败诉。）
正是在关税案判决后的2月，特朗普公开斥责了最高法院的部分大法官。“我为法院的某些成员感到羞耻，绝对羞耻，他们没有勇气做对国家有利的事。”
谈到两位由他任命却投票反对他的大法官巴雷特和尼尔·戈萨奇，特朗普称他们“让自己的家庭蒙羞”。
公民出生地身份案对特朗普而言或许意义更为重大。他于2025年1月重返白宫的首日就签署了限制该权利的行政命令，此次现身法庭也体现了他对此事的坚定承诺。
这项行政命令是其反移民议程中最大胆的举措，直击美国身份认同的核心，让人想起1857年臭名昭著的德雷德·斯科特诉桑福德案——该案裁决黑人不能成为美国公民。
特朗普全程旁听了绍尔时长逾一小时的陈述，随后也留到了美国公民自由联盟代表反对方的律师塞西莉亚·王进行辩论的初期阶段。
辩论进行约7分钟后，特朗普突然起身离开了法庭。大法官们继续就王的论点展开讨论，似乎并未受到干扰。
相关报道：CNN独家报道：约翰·罗伯茨与特朗普在最高法院赢得豁免权的幕后故事 9分钟阅读
关于“定居”的辩论
在离场前，特朗普应该听到了罗伯茨向王提出的首个问题，该问题涉及1898年具有里程碑意义的最高法院判例美国诉黄金德案。在该案中，法院裁定一位父母为旅居美国的中国国民的男子是美国公民。这一判决长期以来被视为对第十四修正案公民身份保障范围的肯定。
但绍尔辩称，该判决的一个重要要素是黄金德的父母实质上是美国的永久居民，也就是“定居”于此，或受美国管辖。绍尔将当下的临时居留者或非法居留美国的人群与当时的情况区分开来。
罗伯茨就此向王展开追问。
“我们听到了很多关于黄金德案的讨论，而你却对其中提到的‘定居’一词不屑一顾，”罗伯茨开始说道，“该词在判决意见中出现了20次，包括在提交的问题和实际的法律裁决中……难道你能仅凭‘该词在意见中被多次讨论且发挥了重要作用’，就随意将其斥为无关紧要吗？这难道不值得我们至少予以关注吗？”
王敦促罗伯茨和其他大法官全面考量多数判决意见，包括理解第十四修正案中“受其管辖”的措辞。
相关视频：2025年6月27日，美国华盛顿特区，司法部长帕姆·邦迪在白宫简报室与唐纳德·特朗普总统就近期最高法院裁决发表讲话。最高法院以6票对3票裁决，个别法官不能发布全国性禁令以阻止行政命令，包括阻止特朗普终止美国公民出生地身份的行政命令。大法官们并未就特朗普终止公民出生地身份的命令作出裁决，但暂停该命令生效30天。（图片来源：乔·雷德尔/盖蒂图片社）
乔·雷德尔/盖蒂图片社
消息人士：特朗普曾讨论罢免司法部长帕姆·邦迪 1:53
她表示，黄金德案“首先提出了一个前提，即在解释第十四修正案公民身份条款时，我们应参考英国普通法……根据英国普通法，若你出生在主权国家的领地内，你就负有自然效忠义务，而那些身处主权国家领地内的人，在逗留期间负有临时效忠义务”。
她承认历史上存在少数例外情况，例如外国大使所生子女，并强调：“第十四修正案的目的就是采纳这种普遍的出生地公民身份规则。”
罗伯茨并未继续就该问题向王追问，他的明显满意态度与此前对绍尔的回应形成鲜明对比——当时副检察长辩称特朗普政府可以扩大可豁免公民出生地身份的外国人群体类别。
“你显然非常重视‘受其管辖’这一表述，但你用来支持该观点的例子在我看来非常奇怪，”罗伯茨对绍尔说道，“你提到了外国大使的子女、敌对入侵期间敌军的子女、军舰上的儿童。然后你又将其扩大到整个非法居留该国的外籍人群。”
“我不太清楚你怎么能从如此小众且特殊的例子，引申出这么大的群体范围，”罗伯茨补充道。
相关报道：当地时间1月23日，众议员布莱恩·巴宾（左）与众议员安迪·比格斯（右）一同在国会山就《出生地公民身份法案》回答记者提问。罗德·莱姆基 Jr./美联社
出生地公民身份：为何“属地原则”在美洲如此重要 6分钟阅读
在法庭内时，特朗普无法发表任何言论，因为法庭禁止携带手机或其他电子设备。但在离开法庭约一小时后，他似乎想要盖棺定论。
他在Truth Social上发帖重复了此前的虚假言论：“我们是世界上唯一一个蠢到允许‘出生地’公民身份的国家！”
事实上，全球约有30个国家也允许出生地公民身份，其中大多数位于美洲地区，包括北美、南美和中美洲。
John Roberts told Donald Trump exactly what he thinks
2026-04-02T13:58:25.330Z / CNN
By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst
2 hr ago
PUBLISHED Apr 2, 2026, 9:58 AM ET
President Donald Trump gestures to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after being sworn in at his inauguration in the US Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025.
Kenny Holston/Pool/Getty Images/File
When Chief Justice John Roberts and the eight associate justices took the Supreme Court bench on Wednesday for a fundamental debate over American identity, they did not acknowledge the presence of Donald Trump in the courtroom.
That was not unexpected: Wednesday marked the first time in modern history that the president of the United States attended an oral argument. But Trump was there as a litigant and spectator, not in any formal role.
Then, in a move that was surprising, Roberts showed his hand.
The chief justice can be cagey during arguments. In high-profile cases, he often sends mixed signals and keeps his options open.
But during the momentous session, Roberts made plain his skepticism for the Trump position that would upend more than a century of constitutional history and tradition. The chief justice cast doubt on the Trump administration’s alternative view of the reach of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee.
Related article: 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 Wednesday, April 1, 2026. Dana Verkouteren Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship 9 min read
Roberts particularly dismissed US Solicitor General John Sauer’s contention that contemporary immigration problems require a revision of the understanding that virtually all children born on US soil become American citizens, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.
Echoing Trump assertions, Sauer argued that “a sprawling industry of birth tourism” has led to “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations” arriving in the US to have their children here.
“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer told Roberts, “where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a US citizen.”
“Well, it’s a new world,” Roberts rejoined. “It’s the same Constitution.”
The tone was especially biting for a chief justice known for his measured public comments. He was aware that the case was drawing inordinate interest. Television and radio networks aired the arguments live. All the courtroom seats, and extra chairs in the alcoves, were filled. Among the people in a special section reserved for spouses and guests of the nine justices was actor Robert De Niro, a Trump critic.
All told, over more than two hours of arguments, there appeared to be no majority among the justices to reinterpret the established view of the 14th Amendment, which dictates, “all persons born or naturalized in the United Sates, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Historically, only a few, specific categories of children were exempt, such as those born to foreign ambassadors or invading armies.
Appealing the widespread sentiment of lower court judges against the administration, Sauer latched onto the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” and contended that anyone on US soil unlawfully or temporarily, such as on a student visa, is not sufficiently subject to US jurisdiction.
Roberts and other key conservative justices challenged that constitutional rationale as well as the practicalities of a position that would require delving into children’s parentage.
https://www.cnn.com/
U.S. Supreme Court considers future of birthright citizenship in landmark case
3:04 • Source: CNN
U.S. Supreme Court considers future of birthright citizenship in landmark case
3:04
“What would you do with what the common law called ‘foundlings,’” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “The thing about this is then you have to adjudicate, if you’re looking at parents and if you’re looking at parents’ domicile, then you have to adjudicate both residence and intent to stay. What if you don’t know who the parents are?” (A concern for children who might be abandoned at birth arose in some of the religiously tinged briefs submitted in the case.)
“I think there are marginal cases,” Sauer said, as Barrett posed a series of difficult hypothetical scenarios.
Shifting around and leaving early
Trump’s presence on Wednesday lent him little special deference, from his seat in the courtroom to the apparent consensus on the bench.
When Trump arrived, about 10 minutes before the session was to begin, he was quietly escorted to the public section of the courtroom, behind the area reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar. Trump and his entourage, which included Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, were seated in the first row of the general public section. The courtroom is typically hushed, but spectators began buzzing and craned their necks as Trump, in a dark suit and signature red tie, took his place.
He wasn’t quite settled. He switched seats, from one end of the row, to the other, perhaps for a better view of the bench. As he waited for the session to begin, Trump looked around, seemingly taking in the elaborate setting, with its ornate rosette-patterned ceiling and intricate marble friezes of Moses, Solomon and other depicted “great lawgivers of history.”
Related article: CNN What to know about immigration to the US, in charts 3 min read
Trump’s policies and personal conduct have been subject to major lawsuits since his first term in office, beginning with Trump v. Hawaii, early in his first term, involving his travel ban on certain majority-Muslim countries; Trump v. United States, testing his personal claim of immunity from criminal prosecution; then Trump v. Casa, regarding when lower court judges can issue wide-reaching injunctions against his challenged policies. (Trump won those cases.)
He did not witness any of those oral arguments, and while Trump had declared last November that he would attend the dispute over his sweeping tariffs on foreign goods, he decided against it at the last minute. (Trump lost that case.)
It was after February’s tariff decision that Trump fired off another set of public denunciations against the justices. “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country.”
Regarding Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch, two of his appointees who voted with the majority against him, Trump said they were an “embarrassment to their families.”
The birthright citizenship case may mean even more to Trump. He signed the order limiting the right on his first day back in office, in January 2025, and his presence at the court demonstrated his commitment to it.
The order represents the boldest move of his anti-immigrant agenda, striking at the core of American identity and recalling the era of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous 1857 ruling that said Black people could not be citizens.
Trump remained in his seat for all of Sauer’s presentation, which lasted just over an hour. He then stayed for an early portion of the arguments by lawyer Cecillia Wang, of the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the challengers.
About seven minutes in, Trump abruptly stood up and began heading out of the courtroom. The justices continued addressing Wang and did not appear distracted.
Related article: Photo Illustration by Jason Lancaster/CNN/Getty Images Exclusive: The inside story of John Roberts and Trump’s immunity win at the Supreme Court 9 min read
Debate over ‘domiciled’
Before he left, Trump would have heard Roberts’ opening question to Wang, which involved the landmark Supreme Court precedent from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the court found that a man born of Chinese nationals who were living in the US was an American citizen. That decision has long stood as an affirmation of the breadth of the 14th Amendment citizenship guarantee.
Sauer, however, had argued that an important element of the holding was that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were essentially permanent residents of the United States, that is, “domiciled,” or subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Sauer differentiated the situation to that of today’s temporary residents or people living in the US unlawfully.
Roberts followed up on that line of argument with Wang.
“We’ve heard a lot of talk about Wong Kim Ark, and you dismiss the use of the word ‘domicile’ in it,” Roberts began. “It appears in the opinion 20 different times and including in the question presented and in the actual legal holding. … Isn’t it at least something to be concerned about to say that since it’s discussed 20 different times and has that significant role in the opinion that you can just dismiss it as irrelevant?”
Wang urged Roberts and the other justices to consider the majority opinion in its entirety, including to understand the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” phrasing.
Related video: WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 27: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks alongside President Donald Trump on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that individual judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions to block executive orders, including the injunction on President Trump’s effort to eliminate birthright citizenship in the U.S. The justices did not rule on Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship but stopped his order from taking effect for 30 days. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) Joe Raedle/Getty Images Trump has discussed ousting Attorney General Pam Bondi, sources say 1:53
She said the Wong Kim Ark decision “starts with a premise that in construing the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, we look to the English common law. … Under English common law, if you are born in the dominions of the sovereign, you owe natural allegiance, and those who are present in the dominions of the sovereign owe temporary allegiance for as long as they’re present.”
She acknowledged the few historic exceptions, such as for children of foreign ambassadors, and stressed, “The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to embrace that universal rule of birthright citizenship.”
Roberts did not go further with Wang, and his apparent satisfaction stood in contrast to his response to Sauer as the solicitor general contended the Trump administration could expand on the specific categories of foreigners exempted from birthright citizenship.
“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ but the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Roberts told Sauer. “You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country.”
“I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts added.
Related article: Rep. Brian Babin, left, is joined by Rep. Andy Biggs, right, as they respond to questions regarding the Birthright Citizenship Act at the Capitol on January 23. Rod Lamkey, Jr./AP Birthright citizenship: Why the ‘right of soil’ is so big in the Americas 6 min read
While in the courtroom, Trump was unable to say anything, as spectators are prohibited from bringing in phones or other electronic devices. But about an hour after leaving, he seemed to want the final word.
He repeated a prior false claim and said in a Truth Social post, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”
About 30 other countries, in fact, also allow birthright citizenship. Most are in the Western Hemisphere, in North, South, and Central America.
发表回复