2026-06-03T08:05:07.814Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/03/politics/supreme-court-explosive-final-month-birthright-cook-voting-tps
- 美国最高法院正赶在本月内审结26起案件，其中多起涉及特朗普政府的核心政策优先事项。
- 关于总统罢免权、公民出生地国籍和邮寄选票截止日期的裁决可能重塑特朗普的执政任期。
- 这些裁决公布之际，特朗普一方面公开批评作出不利于他的判决的大法官，另一方面又在社交场合拉拢保守派大法官。
AI生成的摘要已由CNN编辑审核。
美国最高法院正与唐纳德·特朗普面临一场非同寻常的对决：大法官们正争分夺秒地在本月底前审结超过24起案件，而这位总统如果判决结果不合他的心意，就会猛烈抨击。
关于行政权力、移民政策、邮寄选票和第二修正案的待决判决，都可能对特朗普未来两年的执政产生极大影响。最高法院预计在6月底前审结的26起案件中，除一起外，特朗普政府均积极参与其中。
排在首位的是一系列上诉案件，涉及特朗普罢免国会试图使其免受总统控制的行政部门官员的权力。最高法院还必须就特朗普通过行政命令终结美国一个多世纪以来公认的出生地国籍政策的做法作出裁决。
所有这些都将在一种诡异的政治动态中展开：这位总统明确表示，如果败诉，他将利用其讲坛以异常严厉的措辞抨击最高法院。今年2月，最高法院驳回了特朗普的全球紧急关税措施，总统随即在白宫召开新闻发布会，称投票反对他的大法官是“家族的耻辱”。
特朗普此前已就可能在出生地国籍案中败诉作出反应——他成为美国历史上首位出庭口头辩论的在任总统。
“他们会在出生地国籍问题上判我们败诉，让我们成为世界上唯一一个实行这种不可持续、不安全且代价极高的‘灾难’政策的国家，”特朗普在5月中旬的社交媒体上写道，“我不需要忠诚，但我确实希望并期望他们为了我们的国家做到这一点。”
与此同时，特朗普最近邀请最高法院的保守派大法官与查尔斯三世国王一同出席国宴，并在5月吹嘘“两位优秀的大法官”出席了美联储主席凯文·沃什的宣誓就职仪式。克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官为沃什主持了宣誓，布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官也到场出席。
本届任期的最后一个月将考验最高法院在应对本届新政府时的立场，但这也可能凸显出总统提出的部分上诉诉求，早在特朗普重返白宫之前，最高法院6-3的保守派多数就已朝着相关方向推进。
“最高法院有长期的意识形态规划，其中一些案件完全符合这一规划，”美国公民自由联盟副法律总监本·威兹纳说道，该联盟在多起案件中反对政府立场。“但我确实认为最高法院有底线，而且我们已经看到了其中一些底线。”
作为《飞黄腾达》明星出身的总统，将罢免官员问题作为最高法院夏季休会前最后几周的核心议题，或许并不令人意外。
特朗普试图解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克，理由是她谎称两处房产为主要住所，存在欺诈行为。库克否认有不当行为。
今年1月最高法院听取辩论时，大法官们暗示倾向于驳回特朗普的诉求——这一判决可能会缓解市场担忧，即未来总统将无法干预对美国经济拥有巨大影响力的独立机构。
相关的另一起案件涉及特朗普试图解雇联邦贸易委员会委员丽贝卡·斯劳特。斯劳特认为，联邦法律要求总统在解雇联邦贸易委员会委员之前必须有正当理由，比如渎职行为。最高法院的判决可能会影响联邦政府内其他几十年来免受总统政治任性干预的机构。
去年12月最高法院听取辩论时，大法官们似乎对特朗普的立场更为支持。事实上，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和法院其他保守派成员多年来一直在扩大总统罢免行政部门官员的权力。从这个意义上说，特朗普的案件时机恰到好处，因为最高法院早已倾向于赋予总统更多权力来管控“独立机构”。
库克案和斯劳特案都涉及罢免独立政府官员。在斯劳特案中，特朗普辩称他无需正当理由即可解雇联邦贸易委员会和其他机构的官员。在库克案中，特朗普声称他有正当理由，因为库克的抵押贷款文件存在问题。对最高法院来说，其中一个问题是——或者说能否——对此类索赔进行审查。
与此同时，最高法院已暗示认为美联储与其他独立机构不同，因为其在经济中扮演着历史性角色。
“特朗普扩大行政部门单一制架构的议程能够得逞，是因为它只是搭上了最高法院自己的便车，”加州大学伯克利分校法学教授约翰·尤说道，他曾为保守派大法官托马斯担任书记员。
尤将最高法院任期的最后几周描述为并非与总统的对决，而是“最高法院继续推进这些议程，特朗普能否成功则取决于他的行动是否与这些议程一致”。
连续第二年，出生地国籍问题将在最高法院工作的最后几周成为焦点。
去年，6-3多数的大法官限制了法院暂时驳回特朗普出生地国籍令和其他政府政策的能力。本月，最高法院将审议这项政策本身是否合法。
特朗普在重返白宫的第一天就签署了一项行政命令，禁止机构为父母不是公民或绿卡持有者的人签发护照和其他证件。虽然这项政策针对的是“生育旅游”，但也会波及数百万父母合法居留在美国的人。
1868年宪法第十四修正案获得批准30年后，最高法院在“美国诉黄金阿基案”中裁定，在美国出生的人——该案中是中国移民的儿子——有权获得美国公民身份，仅存在少数例外情况。但特朗普政府辩称，这一先例长期以来被误解了。
https://www.cnn.com/
美国最高法院在标志性案件中审议出生地国籍的未来
3:04 • 来源：CNN
美国最高法院在标志性案件中审议出生地国籍的未来
3:04
“我们现在身处一个新世界，”政府首席上诉律师、副检察长D.约翰·索尔在4月的口头辩论中说道。
他补充说，全球有80亿人，“只要乘坐一次飞机，就能生下一名美国公民”。
“好吧，这是一个新世界，”罗伯茨反驳道，“但宪法还是那部宪法。”
在任期临近结束时，最高法院宣布还将裁决特朗普是否可以终止数十万外国国民的临时驱逐保护措施。最高法院对约35万海地人和6000名叙利亚人的临时保护身份的裁决，最终可能影响超过100万人。
最高法院还将在一年后重新审视跨性别权利问题，当时保守派多数大法官维持了禁止为未成年人提供跨性别医疗服务的州法律。
今年，最高法院正在审议爱达荷州和西弗吉尼亚州颁布的法律，这些法律禁止跨性别女孩参加女子运动队。大法官们正在权衡这些法律是否符合宪法第十四修正案和1972年一项具有里程碑意义的联邦法律，该法律禁止在学校中存在歧视行为。
其判决可能会影响美国一半以上州的类似法律。
其中一起案件来自西弗吉尼亚州高中学生贝基·佩珀-杰克逊，另一起来自博伊西州立大学高年级学生林赛·赫科克斯。今年1月最高法院听取辩论时，大法官们暗示可能会维持州法律。
过去一年，最高法院多次驳回LGBTQ维权人士的诉求。一年前，最高法院允许特朗普政府实施禁止跨性别者参军的禁令。在跨性别医疗服务判决作出近五个月后，多数大法官支持政府要求美国护照必须标注旅行者出生时的性别，而非其性别认同。
最高法院还在审议多起涉及第二修正案的上诉案件。
其中最引人注目的一起涉及一项联邦法律，该法律禁止“非法吸毒者”拥有枪支。多数大法官似乎准备限制政府对经常吸食大麻者执行该法律的能力，但这一推理将在多大程度上适用于其他人仍是未知数。
出现了一个不同寻常的转折：特朗普政府在为该法律辩护时，最终站到了全国步枪协会和其他希望限制该法律的第二修正案团体的对立面。
最高法院还在审议夏威夷州的一项法律，该法律禁止人们在未获得财产所有者明确许可的情况下，在向公众开放的私人场所（如零售店）携带枪支。今年1月口头辩论期间，大法官们暗示可能会推翻该法律。其他四个蓝州——加利福尼亚州、纽约州、新泽西州和马里兰州——也有类似规定，但挑战者认为夏威夷的规定最为极端。
最高法院此前的一项重大裁决削弱了《投票权法案》，随后又作出了一系列选区重划判决，已经对今年的中期选举产生了影响。
但本月还将有更多相关裁决。
最高法院正在审查水门事件时代出台的限制政党与候选人竞选活动协调支出金额的规定。共和党全国委员会希望最高法院根据第一修正案取消这些限制，尽管2001年的一项先例维持了这些限制。专家表示，这一结果将使每两年涌入选举的大量资金从超级政治行动委员会转向政党。
专家认为，这一结果对共和党比对民主党更有利。
更重要的一起案件是对14个州的法律提出的挑战，这些法律允许在选举日后收到的邮寄选票仍被计入。宽限期旨在解决邮寄延误问题，但共和党人批评这一规定，而特朗普则毫无根据地大肆宣扬邮寄投票存在普遍欺诈行为。
选举管理人员警告称，如果某些州的投票截止日期提前，可能会引发混乱和选民困惑。反对者表示，选举官员只需通知选民变更即可。
这些判决公布之际，大法官们此前已经对近期选举裁决中被指控存在党派偏见的说法感到不安。
尤其是凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官，直言不讳地批评最高法院在处理这些案件时的做法，以及存在政治动机的表象。与此同时，罗伯茨最近为最高法院的指控进行了辩护，他在宾夕法尼亚州的一次活动中告诉听众，此类说法是对“我们工作的误解”。
在两起与选举相关的案件中，特朗普都要求最高法院支持共和党立场。
Supreme Court turns toward an explosive final month with Trump’s priorities at stake
2026-06-03T08:05:07.814Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/03/politics/supreme-court-explosive-final-month-birthright-cook-voting-tps
- The Supreme Court is racing to decide 26 cases this month, many involving Trump administration priorities.
- Rulings on presidential firing power, birthright citizenship and mail ballot deadlines could reshape Trump’s time in office.
- The decisions arrive as Trump publicly criticizes justices who rule against him while courting conservative members socially.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
The Supreme Court is facing an extraordinary showdown with Donald Trump as the justices scramble to finish more than two dozen opinions before the end of the month — with a president who will lash out if any decisions don’t go his way.
Pending decisions on executive power, immigration, mail ballots and the Second Amendment could all have an outsize influence on the next two years of Trump’s presidency. Of the 26 cases the high court is expected to decide before the end of June, the Trump administration took an active role in all but one.
Topping the list is a series of appeals dealing with Trump’s power to fire officials within the executive branch that Congress tried to insulate from presidential control. The court must also rule on the president’s attempt, via an executive order, to end birthright citizenship as it has been understood in the United States for more than a century.
All of it will play out amid an odd political dynamic with the president, who has made clear he will use his bully pulpit to strike out at the court in unusually harsh terms if he loses. When the court tossed out Trump’s emergency global tariffs in February, the president quickly convened a press conference at the White House to claim the justices who voted against him were an “embarrassment to their families.”
Trump is already reacting to an expected loss on birthright citizenship, after making history as the first siting president to attend an oral argument.
“They will be ruling against us on Birthright Citizenship, making us the only Country in the World that practices this unsustainable, unsafe, and incredibly costly DISASTER,” Trump posted on social media in mid-May. “I don’t want loyalty, but I do want and expect it for our Country.”
At the same time, Trump recently invited the court’s conservatives to a state dinner with King Charles III and boasted in May that “two great justices” turned out for the swearing-in of Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh. Justice Clarence Thomas swore in Warsh and Justice Brett Kavanaugh attended.
The final month of the term will represent a test of the court’s spine in dealing with the new administration, but it may also underscore that some of the appeals the president has served up are in line with where the court’s 6-3 conservative majority was moving long before Trump returned to the White House.
“This court has a long-term ideological project and some of these cases are squarely within it,” said Ben Wizner, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is opposing the administration in several cases. “But I do think the court has lines. And I think we’ve seen some of those already.”
Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that “The Apprentice” president made firings a central theme of the Supreme Court’s final weeks before recessing for its summer break.
Trump is attempting to fire Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, over allegations that she committed fraud by claiming two properties as her principal residence. Cook has denied wrongdoing.
When the court heard arguments in January, the justices signaled they were inclined to side against Trump – a decision that would likely ease market fears that presidents going forward would be blocked from meddling with an independent agency with vast sway over the American economy.
Related is a case about Trump’s effort to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter argues that federal law requires presidents to show cause, such as malfeasance, before removing members of the FTC. The court’s decision could implicate other agencies within the federal government that for decades have enjoyed protection from the whims of presidential politics.
The justices appeared far more open to Trump’s position when they heard arguments in December. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the court’s conservative wing have for years expanded the power of the president to fire the officials who occupy the executive branch. In that sense, Trump’s case was well timed for a court that was already warming to the idea of giving presidents more muscle to control “independent agencies.”
Both cases — Cook and Slaughter — deal with firing independent government officials. In Slaughter, Trump has argued that he doesn’t need cause to fire officials at the FTC and other agencies. In Cook, Trump has claimed that he had cause because of the mortgage paperwork. One of the questions for the court is how — or whether — such claims can be reviewed.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has signaled that it views the Fed as different from other independent agencies, because of its historic role in the economy.
“Trump’s agenda to expand the unitary nature of the executive branch’s organization succeeds because it is only jumping on the court’s own bandwagon,” said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who clerked for conservative Thomas.
Yoo framed the final weeks of the Supreme Court’s term not as a showdown with the president, but “rather the court continuing its march on these agendas and Trump succeeding or not based on whether he is acting consistently with them.”
For the second year in a row, birthright citizenship will take center stage in the final weeks of the Supreme Court’s work.
Last year, a 6-3 majority of justices limited the ability of courts to temporarily shut down Trump’s birthright order and other administration policies. This month, the court is weighing whether the policy itself is legal.
Trump signed an order on his first day back in office barring agencies from issuing passports and other documents to people whose parents are not citizens or green card holders. While that policy is geared at “birth tourism,” it would also sweep in millions whose parents are in the country legally.
Three decades after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Wong Kim Ark that people born in the United States – in that case, the son of Chinese immigrants – are entitled to US citizenship, with a few narrow exceptions. But the Trump administration is arguing that the precedent has long been misunderstood.
https://www.cnn.com/
U.S. Supreme Court considers future of birthright citizenship in landmark case
3:04 • Source: CNN
U.S. Supreme Court considers future of birthright citizenship in landmark case
3:04
“We’re in a new world now,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the administration’s top appellate attorney, said during arguments in April.
Eight billion people, he added, “are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a US citizen.”
“Well, it’s a new world,” Roberts fired back. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Late in its term, the Supreme Court announced it would also decide whether Trump could terminate temporary deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals. The court’s decision on Temporary Protected Status for some 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians could ultimately affect more than a million people.
The Supreme Court is also returning to transgender rights a year after its conservative majority let stand state laws that bar trans care for minors.
This year, the court is considering laws enacted by Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender girls from competing on girls’ sports teams. The justices are weighing whether those laws are consistent with the 14th Amendment and a landmark 1972 federal law that bars discrimination in schools.
Its decision could affect similar laws in more than half the country.
One of the cases comes from Becky Pepper-Jackson, a West Virginia high school student. The other is from Lindsay Hecox, a senior at Boise State University. When the court heard arguments in the cases in January, it signaled it was likely to allow the state laws to stand.
The court has repeatedly ruled against LGBTQ advocates over the past year. A year ago, it allowed the Trump administration to enforce a ban on transgender service members in the military. Nearly five months after the decision on trans care, a majority of justices let the administration require US passports to include a traveler’s sex at birth, rather than a person’s gender identity.
The court is also considering a number of appeals dealing with the Second Amendment.
The most notable involves a federal law that bars people who are an “unlawful user” of drugs from owning guns. A majority of the justices appeared prepared to limit the government’s ability to enforce that law against a frequent marijuana user, though just how far that reasoning will extend to other people is an open question.
In an unusual twist, the Trump administration in defending the law has wound up on the opposite side of the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment groups that want to limit the law.
The court is also considering a Hawaii law that blocks people from carrying guns onto private property that is open to the public — such as retail stores — without the explicit approval of the property owner. The justices signaled during oral arguments in January that it was likely to strike down that law. Four other blue states – California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland – have similar regulations, though the challengers contend that Hawaii’s is the most extreme.
With a major ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act and a subsequent series of redistricting decisions, the Supreme Court has already had an impact on this year’s midterm elections.
But there will be more to come this month.
The court is reviewing Watergate-era limits on how much money can be spent by parties in coordination with a candidate’s campaign. The Republican National Committee wants the justices to lift those limits under the First Amendment, despite a 2001 precedent that upheld them. Experts say that outcome would shift the flood of money that pours into elections every other year away from super PACs and toward the political parties.
And it’s an outcome that experts believe would benefit Republicans more than Democrats.
Even more significant is a case challenging laws in 14 states that allow mail-in ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. The grace period is intended to account for mail delays, but it has been criticized by Republicans as Trump has harped, without evidence, on widespread fraud in mail balloting.
Election administrators have warned of chaos and voter confusion if the ballot deadlines in certain states are moved up for this year’s midterm. Opponents have said that election officials can simply notify voters of the change.
Those decisions will land as the justices have already appeared on edge about claims of partisanship in recent election rulings.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in particular, has been outspoken in criticizing the court for its handling of those cases and the appearance of political motive. Roberts, meanwhile, recently defended the court against charges of politics, telling an audience in Pennsylvania that such claims were an inaccurate “understanding of what we do.”
In both election-related cases, Trump is asking the high court to side with the Republican position.
