2026年4月16日 美国东部时间下午1:38 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
2025年1月20日，在美国华盛顿特区国会大厦圆形大厅举行的就职典礼上，美国最高法院大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在唐纳德·特朗普总统发表讲话时聆听。唐纳德·特朗普开启其第二任任期，成为美国第47任总统。奇普·索莫德维拉/ pooled 摄 路透社
奇普·索莫德维拉/ pooled 路透社/档案照片
最高法院的紧急案卷再次成为联邦司法系统内的争议焦点，大法官们就快速上诉案件的处理方式公开互相指责，尤其是涉及唐纳德·特朗普总统政策的案件。
这场针对批评人士所称“影子案卷”的新一轮辩论，已成为近期多起大法官矛盾公开化事件的核心——包括索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官对一名保守派同事发起的罕见尖锐抨击。
作为最高法院资深自由派大法官，索托马约尔于周三罕见地公开致歉，此前她曾暗示布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官的优越成长背景影响了他去年审理一起紧急移民案件的立场。就在她道歉的前一天，一段新发布的视频显示，凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官曾花一个多小时痛斥法院保守派多数派对快速审理案件的处理方式。
“过去，大法官们都会谦逊地等待，”杰克逊这位最高法院新晋自由派大法官在耶鲁法学院发表演讲时说道，她将如今的最高法院与自己20年前担任书记员时大法官们处理紧急事务的方式进行了对比。“如今情况已大不相同。”
杰克逊表示，最高法院未能意识到其“随手写下的思考”造成了“现实世界的伤害”。
相关报道
《最高法院大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺与凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊》 盖蒂图片社
卡瓦诺与杰克逊在讨论紧急案卷时争执不下 阅读时长：3分钟
要判定一项总统政策是否合法，可能需要数月甚至数年时间。而在影子案卷程序中，法院会在这一流程推进期间直接裁定该政策是否继续生效。由于必须快速做出裁决，法院几乎不会进行口头辩论，也不会收到同等详尽的案情陈述来辅助决策。
下级法院已纠结数月，讨论最高法院的紧急命令——有时也被称为“临时命令”——是否具有超出本案的先例约束力。当最高法院几乎未解释推理过程，或后续案件的事实略有不同时，这一问题就会变得格外棘手。
这场对程序的重新批评恰逢最高法院进入最繁忙的阶段，大法官们正幕后起草夏季休庭前最重要的实体案件判决书。未来几周，法院将对三项重要的实体上诉案做出裁决：特朗普解雇联邦官员的权力、他终止数百万人生来公民权的举措，以及共和党修改今年中期选举规则的努力。
与此同时，由于对特朗普许多最具争议的早期国内政策的挑战要么已了结，要么已提交至最高法院，今年的紧急案卷数量已大幅减少。
去年，最高法院受理了约30起涉及特朗普政策的紧急案件。大法官们允许总统解除一些独立机构负责人的职务，同时由法院审理这些解雇行为的合法性。他们还允许特朗普单方面削减国会批准的拨款、终止对许多移民的临时驱逐保护令，以及禁止跨性别军人服役。
但另一方面，法院也阻止了特朗普解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克的行动，并驳回了他派遣国民警卫队保护移民海关执法局（ICE）特工的请求。
最高法院的辩护者指出，与实体案件不同，当紧急案件提交至法院时，大法官们必须做出裁决，不能悬而不决。而且，大法官们无法决定行政部门会选择提交哪些紧急案件。
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/02/politics/video/shadow-docket-trump-supreme-court-explained
最高法院如何快速审理特朗普相关案件
下游影响
对紧急案卷的批评每隔几年就会出现。但如今越来越多司法系统内部人士提出了担忧。最近几周，多家下级法院公开辩论应如何处理最高法院往往措辞简洁的紧急命令。
“临时命令通常未经全面案情陈述和口头辩论就予以发布，这意味着我们应谨慎行事，而非扩大其适用范围，”奥巴马任命的美国巡回法官詹姆斯·怀恩在本月一项裁决中写道，该裁决允许特朗普政府的政府效率部获取社会保障管理局的数据。最高法院去年曾在一项紧急命令中支持政府效率部在该案中的立场。
“将临时命令视为具有约束力的先例，无异于抛弃了我们长期以来秉持的司法原则：通过理性意见而非在紧迫时间压力下提出的紧急动议来裁决宪法问题，”怀恩写道。“更深远的是，这将削弱公众对我们司法系统致力于审议和透明度的公正性的信心。”
特朗普任命的美国巡回法官朱利叶斯·“杰伊”·理查森则持不同看法。
“本院是下级法院，”他在同一起案件的意见中写道。“最高法院发话时，下级法院必须遵从。”
特朗普政府一直在下级法院积极主张，应将最高法院此前的紧急裁决作为后续案件的判决依据。在一系列涉及“临时保护身份”（为特定移民提供的人道主义救济）的案件中，这一主张已得到应用。去年10月，最高法院允许政府取消约30万居住在美国的委内瑞拉人的临时保护身份。
当政府取消埃塞俄比亚公民临时保护身份的举措在联邦法院遭到挑战时，政府援引了最高法院在委内瑞拉案件中的命令。美国地区法官布莱恩·墨菲在本月的一项裁决中驳回了这一论点。这位拜登任命的法官指出，最高法院在另外两起涉及海地人和叙利亚人相同保护政策的紧急案件中推迟了裁决。
“请注意，最高法院未对其近期暂缓相关但并非完全相同的地区法院命令的行为作出任何解释，”墨菲在一份脚注中写道。
特朗普政府于次日对该裁决提起上诉。
“伤人的言论”
索托马约尔的道歉是在她上周在堪萨斯州一场活动中发表言论之后做出的，当时她批评卡瓦诺在一起涉及ICE巡逻的紧急移民案件中的协同意见。该裁决支持特朗普推动允许移民执法官员继续实施批评人士所称的加利福尼亚州“流动巡逻”，而下级法院认为这种巡逻很可能违反了第四修正案。
最高法院未对其裁决作出任何解释。或许是为回应外界对多数派在紧急命令中频繁不解释立场的批评，卡瓦诺执笔解释了自己的投票理由。
卡瓦诺表示，特工拦截移民时所依据的因素“综合起来至少可构成对美国境内非法滞留的合理怀疑”。这些因素可能包括某人明显的种族、语言，或其在农场或公交站等特定地点出现的情况。
“重要的是，”卡瓦诺补充道，“合理怀疑仅意味着移民官员可以短暂拦截该个人并询问其移民身份。”
移民倡导组织表示，这些拦截通常持续时间更长、侵犯性更强，远超卡瓦诺在意见书中的描述。在该案中持反对意见的索托马约尔在堪萨斯大学法学院演讲时也提及了这一批评。
相关报道
《塞缪尔·阿利托与克拉伦斯·托马斯》 盖蒂图片社
特朗普聚焦2026年重大议题：可能替换大法官阿利托与托马斯 阅读时长：4分钟
“我的一位同事在该案中写道，这些只是临时拦截，”据彭博社报道，索托马约尔说道。“这出自一位父母是专业人士的人之口。他恐怕根本不认识任何按小时计酬工作的人。”
由于这番言论背离了大法官们在公开场合几乎始终维持的同僚情谊形象，对她言论的审查迅速升级。周三，索托马约尔承认自己的言论“伤人”且“不当”。
不过，索托马约尔并未收回自己对紧急案卷的看法。在访问堪萨斯州几天后，她在阿拉巴马州表示，最高法院本身应为去年涌现的大量紧急案件负责。
“这是我们自己造成的，”她说。
杰克逊与卡瓦诺之争
上个月杰克逊与卡瓦诺的一场原本轻松的对话，在主持人提及法院的紧急案卷时变得紧张起来。卡瓦诺表示，紧急案件数量增加至少部分原因在于总统们渴望通过行政行动绕过陷入僵局的国会推行政策。
这位特朗普任命的大法官表示，鉴于法院必须就是否批准这些案件做出裁决，一些对紧急案卷的批评是不公平的。
他还质疑一些批评者“记性太差”，指出拜登政府也曾在下级法院叫停其政策时频繁提起上诉。
杰克逊在耶鲁法学院演讲时提前预告了自己的立场，她表示法院本身至少应承担部分责任。
“我认为这是因为最高法院表现出愿意受理这些紧急动议的态度，”她说。“布雷特应该记得，大约20年前我们担任书记员时，最高法院并非如此立场——并非只要提交这些动议，法院就必须受理并就案情实质予以批准。”
相关报道
《2021年4月23日，华盛顿特区最高法院大法官集体合影时，塞缪尔·阿利托大法官就座》 艾琳·沙夫/ pooled 盖蒂图片社
特朗普谈及露丝·巴德·金斯伯格去世对最高法院的影响，同时讨论塞缪尔·阿利托的未来 阅读时长：4分钟
卡瓦诺暗示，一些对紧急案卷的批评似乎基于人们对案件本身的好恶。
“凯坦吉说得很对，”他说道，随后补充道，“无论哪位总统当政，都应保持一致立场。”
“我同意，”杰克逊说。
“我就知道你会同意，”卡瓦诺补充道。
Sniping by justices underscores tension over Supreme Court’s ‘shadow docket’
2026-04-16 1:38 PM ET / CNN
By John Fritze
Supreme Court Supreme Court justices Donald Trump
Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Associate Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson listen as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. Chip Somodevilla/Pool via REUTERS
Chip Somodevilla/Pool/Reuters/File
The Supreme Court’s emergency docket has resurfaced as a flashpoint within the federal judiciary as justices openly snipe at one another over the handling of short-fuse appeals, especially those involving President Donald Trump’s policies.
The renewed debate over what critics call the “shadow docket” has been at the center of several recent instances of tension between the justices spilling out into public view – including an unusually harsh broadside Justice Sonia Sotomayor leveled at a conservative colleague.
Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, issued a rare public apology on Wednesday for suggesting earlier that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s privileged upbringing influenced his approach to an emergency immigration case last year. A day before her mea culpa, a newly posted video revealed that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had spent more than an hour lambasting the court’s conservative majority for its handling of quick turn cases.
“Back then, the justices humbly waited,” Jackson,the court’s junior liberal, told Yale Law School as she drew a comparison between the modern court and how she said the justices dealt with emergency matters when she was a clerk two decades ago. “Things are different now.”
The court, Jackson said, has failed to grasp how its “scratch paper musings” caused “real-world harms.”
Related article Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson Getty Images Kavanaugh and Jackson appearance gets testy when emergency docket comes up 3 min read
It can take months, and even years, to decide if a president’s policy is legal. On the shadow docket, the court decides if that policy remains in effect, or not, while that process plays out. Because of the speed at which the court must move, it rarely holds oral arguments or receives the same level of briefing to make that decision.
Lower courts have wrestled for months with whether the Supreme Court’s emergency orders – sometimes referred to as “interim orders” – carry the weight of precedent beyond the case at hand. That can prove especially tricky when the Supreme Court offers little explanation of its reasoning, or the facts of a subsequent case are slightly different.
The revived criticism of the process has landed as the Supreme Court is heading into its most intense period, with justices working behind the scenes to draft opinions in the most significant merits cases ahead of summer recess. In coming weeks, the court will decide major merits appeals on Trump’s power to fire federal officials, his effort to end birthright citizenship for millions of people and Republican efforts to alter this year’s midterm election.
At the same time, the emergency docket itself has lightened considerably this year as challenges to many of Trump’s most controversial early domestic policies have either run their course or already reached the high court.
Last year, the Supreme Court docketed roughly 30 emergency cases involving Trump policies. The justices allowed the president to remove the leaders of some independent agencies while courts considered the legality of their firings. They also let Trump unilaterally cut funding approved by Congress, halt temporary deportation protections for many immigrants and bar transgender service members from the military.
On the other hand, the court blocked Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and it rejected his effort to deploy the National Guard to protect ICE agents.
The court’s defenders note that, unlike in merits cases, the Supreme Court has to rule one way or the other when an emergency case lands on its doorstep. And the justices don’t control which emergency cases an administration chooses to file.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/02/politics/video/shadow-docket-trump-supreme-court-explained
How the Supreme Court is fast-tracking Trump cases
How the Supreme Court is fast-tracking Trump cases
6:47
Downstream effects
Criticism of the docket crops up every few years. But it is increasingly members of the judiciary themselves who are raising concerns. In recent weeks, several lower courts have openly debated what to do with the court’s often terse emergency orders.
“Interim orders are frequently issued without full briefing and without oral argument. That counsels caution, not expansion,” US Circuit Judge James Wynn, an Obama appointee, wrote in a decision this month allowing the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. The Supreme Court had sided with DOGE in that case in an emergency order last year.
“To treat interim orders as binding precedent abandons our long-held jurisprudence of deciding constitutional law through reasoned opinions, not emergency motions made under intense time pressure,” Wynn wrote. “More profoundly, it would weaken the public’s confidence in the integrity of our judicial system’s commitment to deliberation and transparency.”
US Circuit Judge Julius “Jay” Richardson, a Trump nominee, saw it differently.
“This court is an inferior one,” he wrote in the same case. “When the Supreme Court speaks, inferior courts must listen.”
Trump’s Justice Department has been aggressively pushing the idea in lower courts that previous emergency decisions from the Supreme Court should decide the outcome of subsequent cases. That is what has happened in a series of cases involving what’s known as Temporary Protected Status, a form of humanitarian relief for certain immigrants. The court in October allowed the administration to strip TPS for some 300,000 Venezuelans living in the United States.
When the administration’s effort to remove TPS for Ethiopian nationals was challenged in federal court, the administration cited the Supreme Court’s order in the Venezuelan case. US District Judge Brian Murphy rejected that argument in a ruling his month. The Biden nominee noted that the Supreme Court had deferred a decision in two other emergency cases dealing with the same protections for Haitians and Syrians.
“Note that the Supreme Court gave no explanation for its recent stays of related, but not identical, district court orders,” Murphy wrote in a footnote.
The Trump administration appealed the decision the next day.
‘Hurtful comments’
Sotomayor’s apology followed remarks she made to an audience in Kansas last week in which she criticized Kavanaugh for his concurring opinion in an emergency immigration case dealing with ICE patrols. That decision backed Trump’s push to allow immigration enforcement officials to continue what critics describe as “roving patrols” in California that lower courts said likely violated the Fourth Amendment.
The court offered no explanation for its ruling. Perhaps responding to criticism about how frequently the majority doesn’t explain its position in emergency orders, Kavanaugh picked up his pen to explain his vote.
Kavanaugh said that the factors the agents were using to stop migrants “taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States.” Those factors could include a person’s apparent ethnicity, for instance, language or their presence at a particular location, such as a farm or a bus stop.
“Importantly,” Kavanaugh added, “reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status.”
Immigrant advocacy groups have said the stops are often lengthier and more intrusive than Kavanaugh made them seem in his opinion. Sotomayor, who dissented in the case, picked up on that line of criticism as she spoke at University of Kansas School of Law.
Related article Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas Getty Images Trump leans in on a major 2026 issue: possibly replacing Justices Alito and Thomas 4 min read
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” Sotomayor said, according to a Bloomberg report. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
Scrutiny of her remarks ballooned because they departed from the image of collegiality the justices almost always portray in their public remarks. On Wednesday, Sotomayor acknowledged that her comments were “hurtful” and “inappropriate.”
Sotomayor did not, however, walk back her thoughts about the emergency docket. Speaking in Alabama days after her visit to Kansas, Sotomayor said the Supreme Court itself was to blame for last year’s flood of emergency cases.
“We’ve done it to ourselves,” she said.
Jackson v. Kavanaugh
An otherwise breezy conversation between Jackson and Kavanaugh last month turned tense when the moderator asked about the court’s emergency docket. Kavanaugh said he believes the rise in emergency cases is at least partly attributable to presidents eager to push policies past a gridlocked Congress via executive actions.
The Trump nominee said that some of the criticism of the court’s emergency docket is unfair, given that the court must rule one way or the other on whether to grant or deny those cases.
And he questioned the “short memories” of some of the court’s critics, noting that the Biden administration also regularly appealed cases when lower courts shut down its policies.
In a preview of her address at Yale, Jackson said then that she believes the court itself is at least partly to blame.
“I think it’s because the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to grant these emergency motions,” she said. “Brett will remember that when we clerked some 20 years ago, this was not the Supreme Court’s stance, that just because these motions were filed the court actually had to entertain and grant them on their merits.”
Related article Justice Samuel Alito sits during a group photo of the justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2021. Erin Schaff/Pool/Getty Images Trump recalls how Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death affected the Supreme Court as he discusses Samuel Alito’s future 4 min read
Kavanaugh suggested that some of the criticism of the emergency docket seemed to be based on how people feel about the underlying case.
“Ketanji states it well,” he said, before adding that “you have to have the same position, no matter who’s president.”
“I agree with that,” Jackson said.
“I know you do,” Kavanaugh added.