2026-07-09T15:29:55.536Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/09/politics/trump-supreme-court-rehear-birthright-citizenship
谈及美国最高法院，唐纳德·特朗普总统已成为 unlikely 第二次机会的信徒。
在上周最高法院以一系列备受瞩目的裁决结束本届任期后的几天里，特朗普及其法律团队提出了援引一项希望渺茫的请求的想法，希望大法官们重新考虑他们刚刚作出的裁决——这种程序在某些情况下已有半个多世纪未获通过。
特朗普的律师已就最高法院驳回一起相关上诉的裁决申请重审，该上诉针对的是认定他性侵并诽谤杂志专栏作家E.让·卡罗尔的500万美元判决。而在周三，特朗普誓言将请求最高法院推翻其终止出生公民权行政令的裁决。
“最高法院的裁决是错误的，”特朗普在社交媒体上发帖称，“我将立即请求美国最高法院重审。如果他们不改变这个完全荒谬的裁决，这一司法不公将毁掉美国。”
最高法院的规则在技术上允许各方在裁决作出后的25天内提交重审申请。但实际上，最高法院通常只会在裁决公布后出现重大新情况时才批准此类请求，而非仅仅因为败诉方不认同判决结果。
最高法院在6月30日以6票对3票的投票结果裁定，特朗普通过行政令终止自动出生公民权的行为无效。由五名大法官组成的多数意见认为，该行政令违反了第十四修正案的公民权条款，而第六名大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺则认为该行政令符合宪法，但仍因联邦移民法而被禁止。
最高法院上一次对经过口头辩论的上诉案件申请重审请求进行审理是在1965年。当时的案件是“马里兰州诉美国案”，涉及1958年一架商业客机与马里兰州国民警卫队训练飞机的相撞事故，争议点在于原告能否向美国政府寻求损害赔偿。最高法院在1965年裁定，飞行员是马里兰州政府的雇员，而非联邦政府雇员。
但原告方辩称，下级法院仅审查了飞行员的责任，而非政府空中交通管制员的责任。因此，最高法院以简短命令允许该单独争议在下级法院继续推进。
近十年前，最高法院批准了一起重审申请，案件涉及两名军属妻子在海外杀害其军人丈夫的军事审判——一名在英国，另一名在日本。重审后，最高法院认定这些女性不能由军事法庭审判。时至今日，这仍是最高法院唯一一次重审已作出的裁决并推翻原判的情况。
“最高法院批准重审的情况极为罕见，”康奈尔大学法学院宪法学教授迈克尔·多夫说道。
“当它确实批准时，通常是因为最初审理时未掌握某些关键信息，”多夫告诉CNN，“单纯试图就已决事项重新提起诉讼几乎都会失败。”
美国司法部未就特朗普寻求重审的承诺置评。
根据过往惯例，特朗普在卡罗尔案中的胜算或许稍大一些，但仍可能性极低。
特朗普的律师本周敦促最高法院重新考虑其驳回卡罗尔案500万美元判决上诉的裁决。随后他们已请求下级法院暂缓支付该款项，以便大法官们能够考虑该请求。
特朗普曾表示，他很快将就另一起涉及卡罗尔的案件提起上诉，并暗示最高法院应将两起案件合并审理。但特朗普的律师上个月已在致最高法院的信函中提出过这一建议。尽管如此，最高法院上周仍无异议地驳回了上诉。
卡罗尔的律师拒绝为本报道置评。
对驳回上诉的裁决进行重审的情况，比对最终裁决进行重审要稍常见一些，但此类申请几乎总是涉及最高法院作出裁决后出现的重大情势变更。最高法院上一次批准此类救济是在一年多前，涉及一项针对赛马行业的联邦反兴奋剂法案件。当时，由于另一家联邦上诉法院对该法律的合宪性得出了相反结论，最高法院将争议发回联邦上诉法院进行进一步审查。
在请求联邦下级法院暂缓向卡罗尔支付款项时，特朗普的律师援引了约12起案件——最早可追溯至1940年——在这些案件中，最高法院曾重新考虑驳回上诉的裁决。
“重审并非法律上的不可能，”特朗普的律师本周在下级法院表示，“法院绝不能忽视支付这笔可能永远无法追回的资金所带来的严重且不可挽回的后果。”
该案的联邦法官周三驳回了这一论点，下令向卡罗尔支付相关款项。
特朗普迅速提起上诉。一家联邦上诉法院周三迅速驳回了其立即获得救济的请求，同时将考虑特朗普提出的更长时间暂缓支付的申请。
CNN的卡拉·斯坎内尔为本报道撰稿。
Trump seeks do-overs at a Supreme Court that rarely grants them
2026-07-09T15:29:55.536Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/09/politics/trump-supreme-court-rehear-birthright-citizenship
When it comes to the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump has become a believer in unlikely second chances.
In the days since the court’s term ended last week with a flurry of high-profile opinions, the president and his legal team have floated the idea of invoking a longshot request to have the justices reconsider decisions they just made — a procedure that, in some cases, hasn’t worked in more than half a century.
Trump’s lawyers have already filed for a rehearing of the court’s decision to deny an appeal over a $5 million verdict finding that he sexually abused and defamed magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. And on Wednesday, Trump vowed to ask the court to re-do its decision shutting down his birthright citizenship order.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong,” Trump posted on social media. “I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.”
Supreme Court rules technically allow parties to file for a rehearing within 25 days of a decision. But in practice, the court usually only grants such requests when a significant development comes to light in the aftermath of a ruling, not because the losing party simply disagrees with the outcome.
The court voted 6-3 on June 30 to invalidate Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship through executive order. A five-justice majority concluded that the order violated the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and a sixth justice, Brett Kavanaugh, reasoned that the order was constitutional but was nevertheless barred by federal immigration law.
The last time the Supreme Court entertained a request to review a decision in an argued appeal was in 1965. That case, Maryland v. US, involved a 1958 airplane crash between a commercial plane and a Maryland National Guard training flight and the question dealt with whether the plaintiffs could seek damages against the United States government. The court ruled in 1965 that the pilot was an employee of the state of Maryland, not the federal government.
But the plaintiffs argued that the lower courts had reviewed only the liability of the pilot, not government air traffic controllers. And so the Supreme Court, in a brief order, allowed that separate issue to move forward in lower courts.
Almost a decade earlier, the court granted a request to rehear a case involving the court martial of two civilian wives who killed their military husbands overseas — one in England and the other in Japan. On rehearing, the court concluded that the women could not be tried by court martial. To this day, it remains the only time the Supreme Court ever reheard a case it had decided and reversed itself.
“It is extremely rare for the court to grant reconsideration,” said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School.
“When it does so, it is typically because some vital information was not before it originally,” Dorf told CNN. “Simple attempts to re-litigate a decided issue invariably fail.”
The Department of Justice did not respond to questions about Trump’s promise to seek a rehearing.
Trump’s odds, based on past practice, might be slightly better in the case of Carroll — but it’s still highly unlikely.
The president’s attorneys urged the Supreme Court this week to reconsider its decision to deny his appeal of the $5 million verdict in the Carroll case. And they have subsequently asked lower courts to delay that payment so the justices may consider that request.
Trump has noted that he will soon appeal a separate case involving Carroll and it has suggested the Supreme Court should wait to consider the two cases together. But the president’s lawyers already made that suggestion in a letter to the court last month. The court nevertheless denied the appeal last week without dissent.
Lawyers for Carroll declined to comment for this story.
Reconsiderations of decisions to deny an appeal are somewhat more common than rethinking a final decision, though they almost always involve a significant change in circumstances since the court acted. The last time the Supreme Court granted such relief was more than a year ago, in a case involving a federal anti-doping law for the horseracing industry. There, the Supreme Court sent the dispute back to a federal appeals court for additional review after a different federal appeals court drew the opposite conclusion of the law’s constitutionality.
In asking a lower federal court to withhold payment to Carroll, Trump’s attorneys cited about a dozen cases — dating back to in 1940 — in which the Supreme Court had reconsidered a decision to deny an appeal.
“Rehearing is not some legal impossibility,” Trump’s lawyers told the lower court this week. “The court must not ignore the grave and irreparable consequences of disbursing funds that may never be recovered.”
The federal judge in that case rejected that argument on Wednesday, ordering the release of the funds to Carroll.
Trump quickly appealed. A federal appeals court quickly denied the request Wednesday for immediate relief while it considers Trump’s ask for a longer pause on the payment.
CNN’s Kara Scannell contributed to this report.
发表回复