2026-06-24T10:03:13.834Z / reuters.com
华盛顿6月24日路透电 — 美国最高法院当前的庭审期正快速迎来高潮收尾阶段，该院尚未裁决的一批重大案件将考验唐纳德·特朗普扩大总统权力的激进举措。
最高法院周二公布了五项裁决，预计周四还会公布更多裁决。该院年度庭审期从每年10月初持续至6月底，有时会延至7月。最高法院尚未宣布何时结束本庭审期并开始夏季休庭。
通过《每日案卷》新闻简报，将最新法律新闻直接发送至您的收件箱，开启您的晨间资讯。点击此处订阅。
最高法院通常会在庭审期尾声公布其最具影响力的裁决。今年的不同寻常之处在于，涉及总统权力这一关键议题的重大案件数量众多，而特朗普对该权力的使用尤为大胆。
这些案件涉及他限制出生权公民身份、解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克、罢免独立机构的民主党成员，以及终止保护数十万叙利亚和海地移民免遭驱逐的人道主义法律身份的举措。
重磅案件
“本庭审期最重要的案件在最后几天公布完全正常。不同寻常的是，如此多的重磅案件扎堆出现，”密歇根大学宪法学教授、最高法院问题专家萨姆·厄尔曼说道。
“自特朗普就职以来，我们见证了总统权力的诸多新颖使用方式，这引发了关于政府本质以及总统权力运作方式的诸多重大疑问。因此，最高法院本庭审期表现得十分活跃，收官阶段更是声势浩大，”厄尔曼表示。
在第二任任期内，特朗普在国内事务和外交政策领域都推动扩大总统权力，在诸多方面引发了数百起法律诉讼。
由特朗普在第一任期内任命的三名大法官组成的6比3保守派多数席位的最高法院，似乎对此持开放态度，在相关政策合法性诉讼仍在进行期间，支持了特朗普的多项紧急请求，以实施被下级法院阻挠的政策。
多年来，最高法院的保守派多数日益青睐所谓的“单一行政权”法律理论，该理论将美国政府行政部门的权力完全交由总统执掌。
但这种支持可能存在界限。在大法官们已听取辩论的主要特朗普相关案件中，许多法庭观察人士预测，相较于他在出生权公民身份或库克问题上的举措，特朗普更有可能在解雇独立联邦委员会成员的案件中胜诉。
“他们持有强大行政权的观点，但并非无限行政权，”厄尔曼在谈及保守派大法官时说道。“因此，当他本质上在推进他们的议程时，他很有可能获胜。”
厄尔曼表示，最高法院不太可能认可特朗普通过行政命令限制出生权公民身份的做法。
这位共和党总统的行政命令是其强硬移民政策中极具政治色彩的一部分，该命令将颠覆对美国宪法第十四修正案中关于承认在美国出生的人具有公民身份的长期解释。
关税领域的一次斥责
最高法院此前已对特朗普大胆行使权力作出重大斥责，今年2月裁定其根据旨在应对国家紧急状态的法律实施的全面全球关税无效。该裁决引发特朗普对最高法院整体大加抨击，并贬低了作出不利于他的裁决的大法官。
其他不直接涉及特朗普的重大案件也有待裁决，包括那些将影响选举、跨性别者权利和州级枪支法律的案件。
最高法院正在审理密西西比州共和党人提起的一起诉讼，挑战该州一项允许选举日后收到的邮寄选票在5天宽限期内仍可计入选票的法律——此案可能导致全国范围内出台更严格的投票规则。
在一起涉及副总统JD·万斯的案件中，最高法院还将对共和党人发起的一项诉讼作出裁决，该诉讼以言论自由为由，要求废除联邦对政党与候选人协调支出的限制。
最高法院4月份削弱了1965年标志性民权法案《选举权法案》的一项核心条款，该法案旨在防止投票中的种族歧视。
该裁决引发了美国南部地区疯狂的选区重划行动，以废除黑人选民占多数或接近多数的美国众议院选区，共和党领导的州纷纷趁机利用这一裁决。共和党人希望在11月的中期选举中保留对国会的控制权，而黑人选民通常支持民主党候选人。
在来自西弗吉尼亚州和爱达荷州的案件中，最高法院还将审议是否维持州级法律，禁止跨性别运动员参加女子运动队，而全美各地限制跨性别者权利的行动正不断升级。
在枪支权利方面，最高法院将就一起由特朗普政府支持的诉讼作出判决，该诉讼挑战夏威夷州一项法律，该法律禁止在大多数对公众开放的私人场所（如大多数商铺）未经所有者许可携带手枪。
上周，最高法院一致驳回了特朗普政府所持的立场，该立场威胁到数百万使用大麻并拥有枪支的美国人根据宪法第二修正案享有的枪支权利。
安德鲁·钟报道；威尔·邓纳姆编辑
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则。
Trump’s power takes center stage in US Supreme Court’s home stretch
2026-06-24T10:03:13.834Z / reuters.com
WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s current term is rapidly approaching a climactic finale in which some of its biggest cases yet to be decided will test Donald Trump’s aggressive efforts to expand presidential authority.
The court issued five rulings on Tuesday, with more expected on Thursday. Its annual terms run from early October to around the end of June, sometimes spilling into July. The court has not announced when it will wrap up its term and begin a summer recess.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
The court often waits until the end of its term to issue its most consequential rulings. This year is unusual for the number of major cases lingering that involve the critical issue of presidential power — and Trump’s particularly bold use of it.
The cases involve his efforts to limit birthright citizenship, fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, oust Democratic members of independent agencies and terminate a humanitarian legal status protecting hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian immigrants from deportation.
BLOCKBUSTER CASES
“It’s totally normal for the most important cases of the term to come out in the last few days. What is unusual is that there are so many blockbuster cases,” said University of Michigan constitutional law professor Sam Erman, an expert on the Supreme Court.
“We’ve seen a lot of novel uses of presidential power since Trump took office, and that’s produced some big questions about the nature of government and how presidential power works. So that’s produced a very active Supreme Court term, and a big bang at the end,” Erman said.
Trump has pushed to expand presidential powers during his second term in office in domestic affairs and foreign policy, drawing hundreds of legal challenges on numerous fronts.
The Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed during his first term, has shown it is receptive, backing many of his emergency requests to implement policies impeded by lower courts while litigation over their legality continues.
Over the years, the court’s conservative majority has increasingly embraced a legal theory called the “unitary executive” that places power over the U.S. government’s executive branch solely in the hands of the president.
But the embrace may have its limits. Of the major Trump cases on which the justices heard arguments, many court watchers have predicted that Trump has a better chance of vindicating his firings of independent federal commission members than his actions on birthright citizenship or Cook.
“They have a view of a strong executive, but it’s not an unlimited executive,” Erman said of the conservative justices. “So when he is essentially advancing their project, he’s pretty likely to win.”
The court is unlikely to be sympathetic that Trump, through an executive order, can restrict birthright citizenship, Erman said.
The Republican president’s order, a politically charged part of his hardline immigration approach, would upend a longstanding interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment provision recognizing the citizenship of people born in the United States.
A REBUKE ON TARIFFS
The court already delivered a major rebuke of Trump’s audacious wielding of power, striking down in February sweeping global tariffs that he had imposed under a law meant for national emergencies. That ruling prompted Trump to lash out at the court in general and disparage the justices who ruled against him.
Other major cases that do not directly involve Trump, including those that will impact elections, transgender rights, and state firearms laws, also remain to be decided.
The court is weighing a challenge by Republicans in Mississippi to a state law that allows a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted — a case that could lead to stricter voting rules around the country.
In a case involving Vice President JD Vance, the court is also set to rule on a Republican-led bid to strike down on free speech grounds federal limits on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates.
The court’s conservative majority in April gutted a pillar of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 civil rights law that aimed to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
That ruling prompted a frenzied round of redistricting across the South to eliminate U.S. House of Representatives districts where Black voters make up a majority or near-majority, as Republican-led states scrambled to take advantage of the decision. The Republicans are seeking to retain control of Congress in the November midterm elections. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates.
The court is also weighing, in cases from West Virginia and Idaho, whether to uphold state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams amid escalating efforts nationwide to restrict the rights of transgender people.
On gun rights, the court is set to deliver its judgment on a challenge — backed by Trump’s administration — to a Hawaii law that restricts the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public, like most businesses, without the owner’s permission.
The court last week unanimously rejected a position taken by Trump’s administration that had threatened the gun rights under the Constitution’s Second Amendment of millions of Americans who use marijuana and own firearms.
Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.