2026年4月2日 美国东部时间中午12:11 / 福克斯新闻网
这番引发争议的言论出自周三美国最高法院的口头辩论环节
作者：安德鲁·马克·米勒 福克斯新闻网
发布于2026年4月2日 美国东部时间中午12:11
美国最高法院自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊因在一场关于出生权公民身份的口头辩论中发表的言论遭到保守派的病毒式抨击，她当时打了一个比方，将该议题比作在日本偷钱包。
“我当时在想，你知道吗，我是美国公民，正在日本旅游，这意味着什么呢？你知道的，如果我在日本偷了别人的钱包，日本当局可以逮捕我并起诉我，”杰克逊在周三的口头辩论中说道。这场辩论围绕特朗普总统2025年的一项行政令展开，该行政令旨在对第十四修正案的公民条款做出更狭义的解释。
“这关乎效忠，也就是说，他们可以依法对你进行管控。如果我的钱包被盗，我也可以依靠他们，根据日本法律，起诉偷走我钱包的人。所以即便我只是临时旅行者，只是在日本度假，我们之间依然存在这种基于效忠的关系。这么想对吗？如果是这样的话，那是不是就能解释，为什么临时居民和无证移民只要身处美国，就会拥有这种所谓的‘效忠’呢？”
卡根借脚注抨击自由派盟友杰克逊，矛头直指言论自由议题
美国最高法院大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊于2025年2月13日在华盛顿特区国会图书馆发表演讲，图为2025年最高法院研究员项目活动现场。（杰奎琳·马丁/美联社 pooled 法新社 via 盖蒂图片社）
保守派人士和共和党政客迅速抓住杰克逊将领土管辖权与政治效忠划等号的言论，辩称她的类比从根本上误读了第十四修正案中关于出生权公民身份的条款。
“我认为KBJ（凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊的首字母缩写）根本不知道词语的意思，”保守派传播人士史蒂夫·格斯特在X平台上发帖称。
“也就杰克逊大法官会通过混淆领土管辖权（遵守当地法律）和政治效忠的区别，来为给非法移民提供出生权公民身份的‘自杀式协议’辩护，”转折点美国组织的安德鲁·科尔维特在X平台上发帖称。“如果领土管辖权就等于效忠，那每个游客都是美国公民，这太荒谬了。整件事智商堪忧，让最高法院颜面尽失。”
“我的天，别这样了！”佛罗里达州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯在X平台上发帖称。
“这根本不是效忠的意思，”共和党参议员特德·克鲁兹在X平台上发帖称。
“各位，我们还得忍受这种言论三十年，”Outkick网站创始人克莱·特拉维斯在X平台上发帖称。
“没有什么比‘去一个新国家就立刻违反当地法律’更能代表‘效忠’了，”保守派评论员格雷格·普莱斯在X平台上发帖称。
“这正是拙劣的论证被包装得听起来像学术观点的样子，”保守派评论员A·吉恩·罗宾逊在X平台上发帖称。
“‘受法律管辖’绝对不等于效忠。这就是整个论证崩塌的地方。只要你踏入一个国家……你就受其法律约束。这是管辖权。不是忠诚。不是同意。不是效忠。罪犯在犯罪的瞬间就‘受法律约束’……但这并不会让他成为这个国家的一部分。只会让他对这个国家负责。这个偷钱包的类比恰恰证明了它想要论证的观点是错误的。”
特朗普历史性现身最高法院，出席出生权公民身份案件听证会
警察站在美国最高法院外。（希瑟·迪尔/盖蒂图片社）
“不确定她有没有意识到，在所有国家里，拿日本举例恐怕是对她的事业最不利的，”记者米兰达·德文在X平台上发帖称。“在日本出生的婴儿只有带有日本血统，且父母是登记在册的日本公民、姓名出现在专门的户籍簿上，才能获得日本公民身份。”
“无话可说，”共和党众议员德里克·范·奥尔登在X平台上发帖称。
“蠢到家了，”保守派电台主持人达纳·卢奇在X平台上发帖称。
“我不敢相信这个女人居然在最高法院，我也不敢相信左翼任何人都觉得让她当众说出这种想法对他们有任何好处，”《真实清晰调查》高级作家马克·海明威在X平台上发帖称。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
知名华盛顿特区厨师、活动人士何塞·安德烈斯于2026年4月1日周三在最高法院外领导抗议活动。（希瑟·迪尔/盖蒂图片社 摄）
周三的口头辩论围绕特朗普2025年的行政令展开，该行政令旨在对第十四修正案的公民条款做出更狭义的解释，即父母非法或临时居留美国的情况下，在美国出生的孩子将不会自动获得美国公民身份。
最高法院审理的此案争议焦点在于修正案中的措辞：凡在美国出生并“受其管辖”的人自动成为公民。唐纳德·特朗普总统和保守派法律分析师认为，该条款是内战时期的遗留产物，本意是为解放的黑奴提供保障，而非为生育旅游和非法移民提供依据。
福克斯新闻数字频道的阿什利·奥利弗为本报道撰稿。
安德鲁·马克·米勒是福克斯新闻的记者。可在推特@andymarkmiller找到他，也可发送爆料邮件至AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com。
Justice Jackson sparks online uproar after linking birthright citizenship to stealing a wallet in Japan
2026-04-02 12:11pm EDT / Fox News
The controversial comment came during SCOTUS oral arguments on Wednesday
By Andrew Mark Miller Fox News
Published April 2, 2026 12:11pm EDT
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced viral backlash from conservatives over a comment during oral arguments about birthright citizenship where she floated an analogy comparing the issue to stealing a wallet in Japan.
“I was thinking, you know, I’m a U.S. citizen and visiting Japan and what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” Jackson said during Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on President Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
“It’s allegiance, meaning, they can control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there’s this relationship based on,even though I’m a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it? And if so, doesn’t that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of, quote-unquote, allegiance, just by virtue of being in the United States?”
KAGAN TURNS ON LIBERAL ALLY JACKSON WITH FOOTNOTE JAB OVER FREE SPEECH
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks to the 2025 Supreme Court Fellows Program on Feb. 13, 2025, at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.(Jacquelyn Martin/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Conservatives and Republican politicians quickly seized on Jackson’s comment equating territorial jurisdiction with political allegiance, arguing that her analogy fundamentally misreads the 14th Amendment’s birthright-citizenship clause.
“I don’t think KBJ knows what words mean,” conservative communicator Steve Guest posted on X.
“Leave it to Justice Jackson to defend the suicide pact of birthright citizenship for illegals by not understanding the difference between territorial jurisdiction (obeying local laws), and political allegiance,” Turning Point USA’s Andrew Kolvet posted on X. “If territorial jurisdiction means allegiance, every tourist is a US citizen, which is insane. The whole thing is so low IQ and embarrassing for the Court.”
“Oh, good grief, come on now!” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis posted on X.
“That’s not what allegiance means,” GOP Sen. Ted Cruz posted on X.
“We only have thirty more years of this, guys,” Outkick founder Clay Travis posted on X.
“Because nothing says ‘allegiance’ quite like going to a new country and immediately breaking its laws,” conservative commentator Greg Price posted on X.
“This is exactly how bad arguments get dressed up to sound intellectual,” conservative commentator A Gene Robinson posted on X.
“‘Subject to the laws’ does NOT equal allegiance. That’s where this entire thing collapses. If you step into a country… you are bound by its laws. That’s jurisdiction. It’s not loyalty. It’s not consent. It’s not allegiance. A criminal is ‘subject to the law’ the moment he commits a crime…That doesn’t make him part of the nation. It makes him accountable to it. That wallet analogy proves the opposite of what it’s trying to argue.”
TRUMP MAKES HISTORIC SCOTUS APPEARANCE FOR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE
Police stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court.(Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
“Not sure if she’s aware but of all the countries to mention Japan is probably the least helpful to her cause,” journalist Miranda Devine posted on X. “Babies born in Japan can only become citizens if they have Japanese blood and are born to registered Japanese citizens whose names appear in a special book.”
“No words,” GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden posted on X.
“Peak moron,” conservative radio host Dana Loesch posted on X.
“I cannot believe this woman is on the court, and I cannot believe anyone on the left thinks letting her air these thoughts out loud does them any favors,” Real Clear Investigations senior writer Mark Hemingway posted on X.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Well-known D.C. chef and activist José Andrés leads protesters outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 1, 2026.(Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause so that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship.
At issue in the case before the Supreme Court is the language in the amendment that says anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen. President Donald Trump and conservative legal analysts have argued the provision was a relic of the Civil War and intended for freed slaves rather than a justification of birth tourism and illegal immigration.
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Andrew Mark Miller is a reporter at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.
发表回复