2026-04-01T21:05:12.544Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
亚伦·布莱克 分析
5分钟前更新
美国东部时间2026年4月1日 20:05 更新
2026年4月1日 17:05 发布
这张法庭速写展现了周三美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在美国最高法院口头辩论现场的画面。
达纳·韦库特伦 绘
周三，唐纳德·特朗普总统成为美国现代史上首位出席最高法院口头辩论的在任总统，再次打破了美国政府一项长期存在的惯例。
此举的目的早已不是秘密。
历届总统都会避免出席口头辩论，以避免哪怕只是“看起来”试图不当影响平等的政府分支。但特朗普为达目的，不惜威逼利诱任何人。而近期他最尖锐的批评，针对的正是他任命的、偶尔作出不利于他的裁决的最高法院大法官。
因此，在酝酿打破这项惯例两年后——且在二月份关税案中遭遇最高法院最惨重失败后——特朗普终于付诸行动。
但他的这一决定令人费解。而听证会结束后，这种费解程度更甚。
特朗普似乎想向法官们传递一个信号：在他的第二任期内，法官们已日益成为他最大的阻碍。即便在与伊朗爆发冲突之际，且距离一场关于该冲突的全国黄金时段演讲仅数小时，他仍选择出席这场听证会，这一点似乎印证了上述意图。毕竟他并非无事可做。
但再结合近期一系列不利的法院裁决，他此次现身最高法院，反而可能坐实了他几乎无法掌控司法分支的事实。
周三辩论涉及的政策是特朗普关于出生权公民身份的行政令。去年特朗普重返白宫的第一天，他便试图彻底推翻已有一个多世纪历史的司法解释——即第十四修正案赋予在美国领土上出生的非公民子女公民身份。
传统观点一直认为，这项行政令几乎没有在法院胜诉的可能——它在下级法院的所有诉讼环节均被判败诉——而周三的听证会也并未改变这一普遍看法。
副检察长D.约翰·佐尔甚至遭到了法院保守派和特朗普任命的大法官们连珠炮似的质疑。
在对政府而言最为棘手的一段交锋中，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨就所谓的“生育旅游”——即前往美国领土分娩以使孩子获得公民身份——的主张向佐尔发问。当罗伯茨指出，内战结束后第十四修正案获得批准时，这类问题并不存在，佐尔回应称“我们如今身处一个全新的世界”。
罗伯茨随即反驳道：“没错，世界变了。但宪法没变。”
听证会在佐尔结束陈述、大法官们开始盘问美国公民自由联盟全国法律主任塞西莉亚·王时，特朗普便离开了现场。
我们可能要等到6月或7月才能得知法院的裁决结果。但根据庭审辩论来看，此次裁决的偏向性可能比特朗普在6比3落败的关税案还要明显。
从大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺的提问来看，甚至有可能三名特朗普任命的大法官都会作出不利于他的裁决。
这是特朗普首次亲自出庭的案件，若出现这样的结果，将证明他并没有自己想要展现的那种影响力。
需要明确的是，特朗普毫不掩饰他希望让这些大法官感受到压力。
2018年，特朗普在艰难的确认程序中力挺卡瓦诺成为大法官，但卡瓦诺偶尔作出不利于他的裁决，特朗普在2021年便对其大肆抨击。
特朗普还经常抨击艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官，后者如今已成为对他态度强硬的投票者。今年二月份关税案裁决后，特朗普称巴雷特和尼尔·戈萨奇大法官是“家族的耻辱”。
但不只是周三这场艰难的听证会，让特朗普试图迫使法官顺从其意志的努力显得愈发不乐观。他选择在这个格外不合时宜的时机采取行动。
过去几周，一系列高调议题的裁决都对他不利：
- 一名法官推翻了他的政府试图关停美国之音的举措。
- 另一名法官推翻了他的国防部限制性新闻政策——该政策最终将几乎所有主流媒体都排除在外。
- 随后一名法官叫停了他的政府对Anthropic公司的制裁，原因是Anthropic拒绝让五角大楼按其意愿处理其人工智能技术。该法官称五角大楼的举动“带有奥威尔式色彩”。
- 仅在周二当天，法官们就同时推翻了特朗普终止美国国家公共广播电台和公共广播电视公司资助的行政令，并叫停了他在白宫 grounds 修建新宴会厅的计划——这或许是特朗普目前最珍视的举措之一。
这些案件都尚未终审，但它们共同勾勒出特朗普的政策在法庭上愈发糟糕的处境。（由于法院审理需要时间，这一情况才逐渐显现。）
特朗普似乎认为，他可以像操纵国会共和党议员那样操纵法官。毕竟，大多数共和党议员都竭力避免疏远特朗普的选民基础，以免危及自己的初选机会。
但法官截然不同。他们不仅拥有终身任期，而且实际上重视司法独立的表象。这是一种资产，甚至值得刻意培养和强调。
从最高法院返回白宫后，特朗普在复活节午宴的讲话中对这种独立性表示不满。
“共和党法官和大法官们，他们总是想展现自己的独立性，”他在一段视频中说道，一名《商业内幕》记者称这段视频由白宫上传至其YouTube主页。（截至周三傍晚，该视频已无法在主页上查看。）
特朗普接着描述了他认为这些法官的行为逻辑：“‘我不在乎是特朗普任命了我。我不在乎……他对我来说毫无意义。我要投反对票’，因为他们想彰显自己的独立性。”
但特朗普的这场“秀肌肉”很可能适得其反。这可能会让大法官们——以及其他法官——更觉得他们必须捍卫自己的政府分支，以免看起来特朗普在某种程度上控制了他们。
这并不意味着法官们不受压力影响。但其中的考量有所不同。而面对法官们——甚至包括许多共和党和特朗普任命的法官——接连对他大胆的权力攫取作出不利裁决的快速累积的案例，特朗普似乎束手无策。
因此，他在周三尝试了不同的做法。他或许会后悔这么做了。
本文已根据唐纳德·特朗普总统的言论进行了更新。
Why Trump might regret his historic visit to the Supreme Court
2026-04-01T21:05:12.544Z / CNN
Analysis by Aaron Blake
Updated 5 min ago
Updated Apr 1, 2026, 8:05 PM ET
PUBLISHED Apr 1, 2026, 5:05 PM ET
This courtroom sketch shows President Donald Trump during oral arguments at the US Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Dana Verkouteren
President Donald Trump bulldozed yet another longstanding norm of American government on Wednesday by becoming the first modern president to attend an oral argument of the Supreme Court.
It’s no real secret what this was about.
Presidents have avoided attending oral arguments to negate even the appearance of trying to unduly influence a coequal branch of government. But Trump is happy to browbeat whomever it takes to get what he wants. And he’s reserved some of his most pointed recent criticisms for Supreme Court justices he appointed who have occasionally ruled against him.
So after spending two years floating breaking this norm — and after suffering his biggest Supreme Court defeat in the chamber’s February tariffs decision — Trump finally did it.
But his decision to go was curious. And it’s arguably even more so after the hearing.
Trump seemed to want to send a signal to judges, who have increasingly proven his biggest obstacles in his second term. The fact that he chose to attend even amid the war with Iran — and hours ahead of a primetime address to the nation on the conflict — would seem to reinforce that. It’s not like he doesn’t have other things to do.
But combined with a series of adverse recent court rulings, his presence at the Supreme Court risked reinforcing how little he can control the judicial branch.
The policy at issue on Wednesday was Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. On the president’s first day back in office last year, he sought to effectively overturn the more-than-century-old interpretation that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to the children born to noncitizens on US soil.
The conventional wisdom has long been that this order stood little chance of surviving the courts — it’s been ruled against at every turn in the lower courts — and Wednesday’s hearing did little to disabuse anyone of that notion.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer faced a barrage of skeptical questions even from the court’s conservative and Trump-appointed justices.
In perhaps the most difficult exchange for the administration, Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Sauer on its claims about so-called “birth tourism,” or traveling to US soil to deliver a child so they can be a citizen. When Roberts noted that wasn’t a problem when the 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, Sauer responded that “we’re in a new world now.”
To which Roberts shot back: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”
Trump left the hearing shortly after Sauer wrapped up and as the justices began questioning ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang.
We’ll likely have to wait until June or July to hear what the court rules. But based on the arguments, it seems possible the decision could be even more lopsided than Trump’s 6-3 defeat in the tariffs case.
It would even seem possible, judging by Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s questions, that all three Trump appointees could rule against him.
An outcome like that from the first case in which Trump decided to show up in person could prove that he doesn’t have the influence he seemed to want to show.
And to be clear, Trump has made no secret that he wants these justices to feel the pressure.
He savaged Kavanaugh in 2021 for occasionally ruling against him despite Trump having stood by his nominee during an arduous confirmation process in 2018.
Trump has also frequently attacked Justice Amy Coney Barrett as she has emerged as a tough vote for him. And after the tariffs decision in February, Trump said both Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch were an “embarrassment to their families.”
But it’s not just Wednesday’s tough hearing that painted an increasingly unfriendly picture for Trump’s efforts to bend judges to his will. He chose to do this at a particularly inauspicious time.
Over the last few weeks, a series of rulings have gone against him on some high-profile issues:
- A judge overturned his administration’s efforts to effectively shutter the Voice of America.
- Another overturned his Defense Department’s restrictive press policy that wound up excluding virtually every mainstream outlet.
- Then a judge halted his administration’s sanctioning of Anthropic after Anthropic refused to let the Pentagon do what it wanted with its AI technology. The judge called the Pentagon’s move “Orwellian.”
- And on Tuesday alone, judges both overturned Trump’s order ending NPR and PBS funding and halted Trump’s efforts to build a new ballroom on the White House grounds — which might be one of Trump’s most prized initiatives right now.
None of these cases are over. But they add to an increasingly ugly picture of how Trump’s policies have fared in court. (Because the courts take a while to act, that picture has come into focus slowly.)
Trump seems to think he can manipulate judges much like he does Republicans in Congress. Most GOP lawmakers, after all, strain to avoid alienating Trump’s base for fear of hurting their chances in a primary.
But judges are different animals. They not only have lifetime appointments, but they actually value the appearance of independence. It’s an asset, even something to be cultivated and emphasized.
Trump lamented that independence in remarks at an Easter lunch after returning to the White House from the Supreme Court.
“Republican judges and justices, they always want to show they’re independent,” he said in a video posted by a Business Insider reporter who said the White House had uploaded it to its YouTube page. (The video was no longer visible on the page as of early Wednesday evening.)
Trump went on to describe how he thinks those judges behave. “‘I don’t care if Trump appointed me. I don’t care if … he doesn’t make any difference to me. I’m voting against him,’ because they want to show their independence.”
But it’s quite possible that Trump’s show of force could have the opposite effect. It could make the justices — and other judges — feel more like they have to stand up for their branch of government, lest it look like Trump is controlling them to some extent.
That doesn’t mean judges aren’t susceptible to pressure. But the calculus is different. And Trump doesn’t seem to have an answer for the fast-accumulating list of cases in which judges — and even many GOP- and Trump-appointed ones — have ruled against his brazen power grabs.
So he tried something different on Wednesday. He might wish he hadn’t.
This story has been updated with comments from President Donald Trump.
发表回复