2026年6月14日 美国东部时间上午9:07 / 福克斯新闻频道
涉及出生权公民身份、临时保护身份与机构独立性的案件将检验行政权力的边界
作者：香农·布里姆、比尔·米尔斯、伊莱恩·马伦 福克斯新闻
新功能：您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
随着最高法院临近任期尾声，一大批备受关注的判决不仅将决定唐纳德·特朗普总统多项核心政策优先事项的命运，还将界定未来数年总统权力的范围。
在大理石装饰的法庭大厅和议事室内，六月的最后几周通常被称为“洪水季”，即大法官们在离开华盛顿进入夏季休庭前，赶制判决书的年度冲刺期。九名大法官及其法律助理正严格遵守自行设定的最后期限，撰写并传阅大大小小案件的最终判决草案。
今年，最高法院在本任期内审理了近60起纠纷，目前仍有23起案件尚未作出判决。其中包括四起涉及特朗普行政行动的上诉、两起与选举相关的纠纷，以及分别涉及枪支权利和跨性别者权利的争议。
多起未决争议存在一个共同核心：总统可以在多大程度上行使联邦政策与行政分支的权力。这些判决将极大影响特朗普推进第二任期议程的能力，尤其是在移民和政府监管领域，同时进一步明确白宫、国会与法院之间的权力边界。
特朗普政府面临关键考验，最高法院开启 pivotal 任期
最高法院将就唐纳德·特朗普总统的关税权限听取辩论。（莱昂·尼尔/盖蒂图片社与德鲁·安格/盖蒂图片社）
最高法院传统夏季休庭前的最后工作日目前仍未确定，即便对九名大法官而言也是如此，但他们希望能在本月底前结束工作。不过，鉴于分歧严重的最高法院工作量紧张，这并不能保证如期完成。
以下是我们密切关注的11项尚未出炉的判决意见。
特朗普诉芭芭拉案
这起可说是目前最受关注的待决最高法院案件，挑战的核心是特朗普总统第14160号行政命令，该命令旨在限制父母非法入境的儿童自动获得公民身份。
本案将通过裁定总统是否可以在未经国会批准的情况下，改变对公民身份法的长期解释，界定总统权力的边界。
特朗普在3月亲自出庭参加口头辩论，成为美国历史上首位在职期间出庭的总统——但这似乎并未起到作用。
最高法院公开反驳了政府限制美国公民身份认定范围的全面举措，对“公民特权曾被历史上滥用并错误授予父母非法入境或临时居留者”这一主张表达了不同程度的质疑。
若判决不利于特朗普，将确认长期以来的法律、政治与社会共识，即无论父母的移民身份或临时访客身份如何，所有在美国出生的婴儿都应自动获得公民身份。
深入最高法院：特朗普如何参与出生权公民身份辩论
唐纳德·特朗普总统于2026年6月11日在华盛顿白宫椭圆形办公室发表声明签署公告。此次讲话是在美伊两国紧张局势升级后，特朗普撤回了对伊朗的威胁性军事打击。（吉姆·洛·斯卡尔/法新社/彭博社 via 盖蒂图片社）
马伦诉多伊、达莉亚案；特朗普诉米奥特案
移民相关的行政权力同样是马伦诉多伊、达莉亚案与特朗普诉米奥特案的核心，这两起案件涉及特朗普政府终止针对部分居住在美国的海地和叙利亚移民的临时保护身份（TPS）保护的举措。
目前，TPS计划覆盖约130万名来自17个国家、因战争和自然灾害流离失所的人员，允许他们在美国境内有限期地生活和工作。
三权分立：特朗普及其支持者寻求对抗“激进主义”法官
政府辩称，国土安全部拥有广泛的自由裁量权，可以终止对部分国家移民的临时保护身份保护，称该保护措施本就是临时性的。移民维权人士则反驳称，联邦法律规定了特定程序，并允许法院对相关决定进行审查。
保守派占多数的最高法院已暗示支持国土安全部长撤销13个国家移民的驱逐保护令的自由裁量权。
最高法院准备就特朗普解雇美联储理事的举措进行总统权力重大测试
特朗普诉库克案；特朗普诉斯劳特案
在特朗普诉库克案中，大法官们正在权衡特朗普是否可以解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克。
根据1月的口头辩论，最高法院似乎准备让特朗普在任内遭遇重大法律挫折，强烈支持丽莎·库克继续留任其领导职位——至少目前如此。
总统权力相关的争议焦点在于，尽管美联储作为独立的联邦机构，特朗普是否拥有广泛的单方面行政权力解雇美联储官员。
在辩论中，法院多数成员似乎对特朗普的行动持怀疑态度。
“你的立场是无需司法审查、无需任何程序、也没有任何救济途径？”大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺对司法部副检察长D·约翰·佐尔说，“总统独自决定‘正当理由’的门槛极低？这即便不会摧毁，也会削弱美联储的独立性。”
但另一桩涉及总统解雇权的案件——特朗普诉斯劳特案，可能产生更广泛的影响。前联邦贸易委员会委员丽贝卡·斯劳特对自己被解雇提起诉讼，这将直接检验1935年最高法院在“汉弗莱遗嘱执行人诉美国案”中确立的先例，该先例限制总统仅可因“正当理由”解雇独立监管委员会成员。
若判决有利于政府，将加强总统对从通信、消费者安全到劳工政策和金融市场等各领域监管机构的控制权；若判决有利于斯劳特，则将大幅限制总统的权力。
最高法院对决：特朗普测试其权力边界的策略可能给行政国家带来灾难
美国最高法院大法官于2022年10月7日在华盛顿特区最高法院拍摄官方合影。（奥利维尔·杜利耶/法新社 via 盖蒂图片社）
联邦政府的运作方式可能因此面临巨大风险。独立监管机构和委员会几乎管理着美国人生活的方方面面——从交通安全、劳资关系、环境到社会保障和金融领域。这些机构包括消费者产品安全委员会、联邦通信委员会和美联储。
全国共和党参议员委员会诉联邦选举委员会案
本案争议的焦点是一项联邦法律，该法律限制政党与竞选国会和白宫职位的候选人之间的协调开支。
近年来，以首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨为首的最高法院已推翻了国会制定的联邦竞选开支限制规定。
2024年最高法院最重要判决：从总统豁免权到推翻谢弗林原则
六名保守派大法官似乎准备再次推翻相关规定，可能推翻一项近25年的判例，该判例限制主要政党花费数千万美元，其中大部分用于电视广告。
这场争议凸显了一种分歧：旨在防止腐败的竞选开支限制，是否不当侵犯了第一修正案保障的言论自由权利。
沃森诉共和党全国委员会案
本案争议的焦点是密西西比州的一项法律，该法律允许选举官员清点选举日后收到的邮寄选票，前提是这些选票在选举日前寄出。
最高法院保守派暗示准备限制迟到的邮寄选票
密西西比州是约14个州、哥伦比亚特区和三个领土之一，允许为期一天至数周的宽限期，在此期间，只要选票在选举日当天或之前加盖邮戳，常规选票均可被清点。
加利福尼亚州目前也是如此，6月2日选举的最终结果可能还需要数周甚至更久才能揭晓。
大法官们正在裁定联邦选举日法规是否优先于各州的相关法律，并可能明确“选举”在选票投递和接收方面的确切含义。
判决结果可能取决于罗伯茨和大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特，他们可能投下决定性的一票。
利特尔诉赫科克斯案与西弗吉尼亚州诉B.P.J.案
最高法院还在审理两起涉及跨性别运动员和学校体育的案件。在利特尔诉赫科克斯案与西弗吉尼亚州诉B.P.J.案中，大法官们正在权衡限制跨性别女孩和女性参加女子运动队的州法律是否违反了宪法的平等保护条款或《第九章》规定的联邦保护措施。
近30个州已出台法律，限制出生时被指定为男性的跨性别女性参加公立学校和大学体育赛事，官员们称这些限制旨在确保公平竞争环境和学生安全。
最高法院将审查州政府禁止跨性别运动员参加学校体育赛事的禁令
但一名高二学生和一名大四学生的律师反驳称，这些禁令显然是歧视性的，相关问题应围绕每个学生的平等和尊严展开，不受政治和错误信息的干扰。
最高法院正在审查这些法律是否基于性别进行违宪歧视。
沃尔福德诉洛佩斯案
这起挑战针对夏威夷州的一项法律，该法律禁止包括隐蔽持枪许可证持有者在内的个人将枪支带入对公众开放的私人财产，除非财产所有人明确允许。
本案的关键可能在于财产权是否优先于持枪权，以及两者如何相互作用。
最高法院辩论私人财产上的持枪权争议
毛伊岛的一群枪支所有者正在挑战这些默认许可规则，称该法律不当将携带枪支定为犯罪，即便对公众开放的财产所有人只是未作表态。他们将这些法律称为“吸血鬼规则”，援引德拉库拉的传说，即未经邀请不得进入房间。
但夏威夷官员告诉最高法院，这些限制平衡了持枪权和财产权，援引了夏威夷州自君主制时期以来限制各类危险武器的悠久传统。
美国诉赫马尼案
另一桩尚未判决的第二修正案案件涉及联邦法律，该法律禁止有“习惯性”使用大麻习惯的人合法持有枪支。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
这场“枪支与大麻”争议的核心在于，近几十年来大麻的广泛使用——40个州已以某种形式将其合法化——是否使得将“单纯持有”定为犯罪的规定取决于枪支所有权。
这项法律曾适用于前总统乔·拜登的儿子亨特·拜登，他因违反第922(g)(3)条被定罪，该条款禁止任何“非法使用或成瘾于任何受控物质”的人持有枪支。
香农·布里姆目前担任《福克斯新闻周日》节目主播。她于2007年加入该网络，担任驻华盛顿特区记者，负责报道最高法院事务。
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6396582108112
These 11 upcoming Supreme Court decisions could make or break Trump’s second term agenda
June 14, 2026 9:07am EDT / Fox News
Cases on birthright citizenship, Temporary Protected Status and agency independence test limits of executive authority
By Shannon Bream, Bill Mears, Elaine Mallon, Fox News
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
As the Supreme Court enters the final stretch of its term, a flood of closely watched decisions could determine not only the fate of several of President Donald Trump’s key policy priorities but also the scope of presidential authority for years to come.
Around the marbled halls and chambers, the final weeks of June are often known as “flood season,” the annual rush to complete opinions before the justices leave Washington for their summer recess. The nine justices and their law clerks are on tight, self-imposed deadlines to write and circulate final drafts of opinions in cases big and small.
This year, 23 cases remain unresolved after the court heard arguments in nearly 60 disputes during the term. Among them are four appeals involving executive actions by Trump, two election-related disputes and separate questions involving gun rights and transgender rights.
Several of the remaining disputes share a common thread: how much power a president can exercise over federal policy and the executive branch. The rulings could significantly affect Trump’s ability to advance his second-term agenda, particularly on immigration and government oversight, while further defining the boundaries between the White House, Congress and the courts.
TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY FACES CRUCIAL TESTS AS SUPREME COURT BEGINS PIVOTAL TERM
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s tariff authority.(Leon Neal/Getty Images and Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The court’s last day before its traditional summer recess is still unknown, even to its nine members, but they hope to finish up by month’s end. However, given the divided court’s compressed workload, that is no guarantee.
Here are 11 remaining opinions that we are closely watching.
Trump v. Barbara
Arguably the most closely watched Supreme Court case remaining to be decided, this challenge centers on President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, an effort to limit automatic citizenship for children born to parents who entered the country illegally.
The case could define the limits of presidential power by determining whether a president can change a longstanding interpretation of citizenship law without Congress.
Trump made history by personally attending oral arguments in March, becoming the first sitting president to do so — but that did not seem to matter.
The Supreme Court openly pushed back against the administration’s sweeping efforts to restrict who can be called an American, expressing varying levels of skepticism about the claim a citizenship “privilege” has been historically abused and wrongly granted to those whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
A ruling against Trump would affirm the longstanding legal, political and social consensus supporting the idea of granting automatic citizenship to all babies born in the country, regardless of their parents’ immigration or temporary visitor status.
INSIDE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS
President Donald Trump spoke during a proclamation signing in the Oval Office of the White House on June 11, 2026, in Washington, D.C. The remarks came after Trump pulled back threatened military strikes against Iran following escalating tensions between the two countries.(Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Mullin v. Doe, Dahlia; Trump v. Miot
Immigration-related executive power is also at the center of Mullin v. Doe, Dahlia and Trump v. Miot, cases involving the administration’s effort to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections from certain Haitian and Syrian migrants living in the U.S.
The TPS program currently covers roughly 1.3 million people fleeing war and natural disasters from 17 countries and allows them to live and work in the country for a limited time.
CHECKS AND BALANCES: TRUMP, SUPPORTERS SEEK TO PUSH BACK AGAINST ‘ACTIVIST’ JUDGES
The administration argues the Department of Homeland Security has broad discretion to end some Temporary Protected Status protections for migrants from certain countries, arguing protections are intended to be temporary. Migrant advocates counter that federal law requires specific procedures and allows courts to review those decisions.
The conservative court majority has signaled its support for the Homeland Security secretary’s discretionary power to revoke deportation protections for 13 countries on the TPS list.
SUPREME COURT PREPARES FOR MAJOR TEST OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN TRUMP EFFORTS TO FIRE FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR
Trump v. Cook; Trump v. Slaughter
In Trump v. Cook, the justices are weighing whether Trump can dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Based on January’s oral arguments, the court appears ready to give President Trump one of his biggest legal setbacks in office, offering strong support for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook remaining in her leadership position — at least for now.
The questions of presidential power deal with whether Trump has broad unilateral executive authority to fire someone from the central bank, despite its special status as a stand-alone federal agency.
In arguments, most on the court seemed skeptical of Trump’s actions.
“That’s your position that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh told the Justice Department’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Very low bar for ’cause’ that the president alone determines? I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
But a separate case involving presidential firing authority, Trump v. Slaughter, could have even broader implications. Former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter is challenging her removal from the agency, setting up a direct test of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that limits a president’s ability to fire members of independent regulatory commissions except only for “cause.”
A ruling favoring the administration could strengthen presidential control over agencies that regulate everything from communications and consumer safety to labor policy and financial markets, and a ruling in Slaughter’s favor could greatly restrict the president’s powers.
SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN: TRUMP’S STRATEGY TO TEST LIMITS OF HIS POWER COULD SPELL DOOM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STATE
Justices of the US Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022.(OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
The stakes could be enormous for how the federal government is run. Independent regulatory agencies and boards help manage almost every aspect of American life — from transportation safety, labor relations and the environment to Social Security and finance. Agencies include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Reserve.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
At issue is a federal law that caps coordinated spending between political parties and candidates running for Congress and the White House.
The high court in recent years, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has tossed aside congressionally enacted federal campaign spending limits.
THE BIGGEST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF 2024: FROM PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY TO OVERTURNING THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE
And the six conservative justices appear ready to do so again, and could upend a nearly quarter-century opinion limiting how the major political parties spend tens of millions of dollars, much of it going to television advertising.
The dispute underscores a divide over whether campaign spending restrictions intended to prevent corruption improperly infringe on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Watson v. Republican National Committee
At issue is a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, provided they were mailed on time.
SCOTUS CONSERVATIVES SIGNAL READINESS TO CURB LATE-ARRIVING MAIL BALLOTS
Mississippi is one of about 14 states, the District of Columbia and three territories that permit a grace period ranging from one day to several weeks during which regular ballots can be counted, so long as those ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day.
That is currently the case in California, where final results from the June 2 election may not be known for another couple of weeks or more.
The justices are deciding whether federal Election Day statutes preempt various state laws and may clarify exactly what “the election” means when it comes to the casting and receipt of ballots.
The outcome could rest with Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who could cast the deciding votes.
Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
The court is also considering a pair of cases involving transgender athletes and school sports. In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the justices are weighing whether state laws that restrict transgender girls and women from competing on female athletic teams violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or federal protections under Title IX.
Almost 30 states have laws limiting participation for transgender females who were designated male at birth, in both public school and college athletics, and officials say their restrictions are a matter of ensuring a level playing field and student safety.
SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW STATE BANS ON TRANSGENDER ATHLETES’ PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL SPORTS
But lawyers for a high school sophomore and a college senior counter those prohibitions are clearly discriminatory, and that the issues should be about equality and dignity for every student, free from politics and misinformation.
The high court is examining whether the laws unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of sex.
Wolford v. Lopez
The challenge targets a Hawaii law that prohibits individuals, including concealed-carry permit holders, from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public unless the owner has expressly granted permission.
This case could come down to whether property rights trump gun rights, and how those rights interact.
GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT
A group of gun owners in Maui are challenging those default permission rules, arguing the law improperly makes it a crime to bear arms even where the owner of property accessible to the public is merely silent. They refer to these laws as “vampire rules,” a nod to the legend of Dracula, who could not enter a room without being invited.
But Hawaii officials told the high court the restrictions balance gun and property rights, citing a long tradition in the Aloha State of limiting all kinds of dangerous weapons, dating back to when it was a monarchy.
United States v. Hemani
A separate Second Amendment case still unresolved deals with the federal government’s law banning people with a “habitual” use of marijuana from legally keeping a firearm.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The “guns and ganja” dispute centers on whether the widespread use of cannabis in recent decades — legal in some form in 40 states — makes criminalizing “mere possession” contingent on firearm ownership.
The same law was applied to former President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, who was convicted under Section 922(g)(3), which bars any “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm.
Shannon Bream currently serves as anchor of FOX News Sunday. She joined the network in 2007 as a Washington, D.C- based correspondent covering the Supreme Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6396582108112