2026-06-07T10:13:11.229Z / 路透社
华盛顿6月7日电（路透社）——在最高法院本届任期内，涉及唐纳德·特朗普总统关税、移民及解雇监管官员的政策争议引发了大量关注，但大法官们也即将裁决涉及美国“文化战争”核心议题的重大案件，包括枪支问题与跨性别运动员权益。
预计最高法院将在本月底左右结束为期九个月的庭审周期。其中两起重大案件将对两项法律挑战作出裁决：一项是美国禁止非法毒品使用者拥有枪支的法律，另一项是夏威夷州的法律，该法限制在无需业主许可的情况下，将手枪带入向公众开放的私人场所，如大多数商铺。
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。点击此处注册
最高法院还将裁决爱达荷州和西弗吉尼亚州相关法律的合法性，这两州均禁止跨性别运动员加入女子运动队。目前，这位共和党总统以及多个州正加紧努力限制跨性别群体的权利。
拥有6比3保守派多数席位的最高法院近年来一直在稳步推动美国法律向右转。
枪支权利
在美国持续不断的枪支暴力（包括频发的大规模枪击事件）应对方式存在分歧的背景下，最高法院对美国宪法第二修正案采取了扩张性解读，该修正案保障了人民持有和携带武器的权利。
在1月份对夏威夷州案件的口头辩论中，保守派大法官似乎准备再次扩大枪支权利，对该州法律基于第二修正案提出质疑。夏威夷州的法律要求，将手枪带入向公众开放的私人场所，必须获得业主的“明确授权”。另有四个美国州拥有类似法律。
杜克大学枪支法律中心执行主任、枪支管制倡导者海莉·劳伦斯表示，预计最高法院将驳回夏威夷州为该法律提出的辩护。
“在我看来，夏威夷很可能会以6比3的投票结果败诉，”劳伦斯说道。
劳伦斯还表示，最高法院可能会进一步阐明其在2022年“纽约州步枪与手枪协会诉布鲁恩案”判决中确立的法律框架，用于判断枪支管制法律是否符合第二修正案的要求。布鲁恩案判决指出，任何政府对枪支的限制都必须与美国历史上的枪支管制传统相一致。
毒品使用者相关案件
最高法院于3月份就一项联邦刑事法规的合法性进行了口头辩论，该法规禁止任何“非法使用者”持有枪支或弹药。这项规定是1968年《枪支管制法》的一部分，该法明确列出了被禁止持有枪支的特定人群类别，例如重刑犯和逃犯。
此案由一名得克萨斯州男子提起，他称自己每周吸食大麻数次，并因此根据该法律被起诉。2023年，时任总统乔·拜登的儿子亨特·拜登也因触犯同一法律被起诉，老拜登后来赦免了他的儿子。特朗普政府正在为这项法律辩护。
芝加哥大学法学教授达雷尔·米勒表示，最高法院似乎对禁止非法毒品使用者持有枪支的条款持怀疑态度，但同时也担心该条款范围过广，会破坏该 broader 法律的其他部分，例如禁止重刑犯持有枪支的条款。
“最高法院在审理毒品相关案件，但他们同时也在关注重刑犯持有枪支的相关法规，”米勒说道。
跨性别运动员相关案件
特朗普曾推行多项打击跨性别群体权利的政策，最高法院去年在一项法律挑战仍在进行期间，允许其政府实施跨性别者不得在美国军队服役的禁令。特朗普政府支持爱达荷州和西弗吉尼亚州的相关法律，这两州禁止跨性别运动员加入公立学校（包括大学）的女子及女童运动队。
在1月份的口头辩论中，保守派大法官暗示他们很可能会维持这些法律。
民意调查显示，大多数美国人反对跨性别运动员参加与其性别认同相符的运动队，尤其是在大学层面。
“在这个问题上存在广泛共识，”支持爱达荷州和西弗吉尼亚州法案的克罗格·加迪斯·雷加斯律师事务所体育法律师威廉·博克说道。“70%至80%的公众不理解为什么人们会为这件事争执不休。”
代表其中一名原告的LGBT法律权利组织“兰姆达法律”的律师萨沙·布赫特希望法院能作出裁决，推翻这些州的法律。她表示，本案的口头辩论比2024年另一起涉及跨性别未成年人性别确认医疗护理的纠纷“进展顺利得多”。在那起案件中，最高法院保守派以6比3的投票结果维持了田纳西州对该类医疗护理的禁令。
在2020年的一项判决中，最高法院裁定禁止职场歧视的联邦法律保护同性恋和跨性别雇员。但自那以后，大法官们允许一系列限制跨性别权利的政策生效。
例如，最高法院在3月份阻止了加利福尼亚州的一系列法律生效，这些法律原本可能限制学校在未经跨性别学生许可的情况下，向家长透露其性别认同信息，这一判决为提起诉讼的基督教父母带来了胜利。
除了军队服役禁令外，特朗普政府还推行了多项政策，禁止跨性别者在护照上使用其性别认同，禁止跨性别联邦工作人员使用符合其性别认同的卫生间。
最高法院已经就本届任期内辩论的一起重大LGBT权利案件作出了裁决。
在3月份以8比1的投票结果中，最高法院驳回了科罗拉多州的一项法律，该法律禁止心理治疗师使用“转换疗法”试图改变LGBT未成年人的性取向或性别认同。大法官们支持一名基督教持证咨询师，认为该禁令侵犯了宪法第一修正案对言论自由不受政府剥夺的保护。
移民案件
移民政策也深陷美国文化战争的泥潭。最高法院将在未来几周内对两起涉及特朗普政策的重大案件作出裁决：一是他限制出生公民权的举措，二是剥夺数十万海地和叙利亚移民的人道主义保护——即临时保护身份。
从这些案件的口头辩论来看，特朗普可能会在出生公民权问题上败诉，正如他在2月份关税案件中那样，但可能会在临时保护身份问题上胜诉。
还有一起涉及宗教权利的案件等待裁决：一名拉斯塔法里教派男子起诉路易斯安那州监狱官员，原因是狱警将他剃成光头，违反了他的宗教信仰，此案依据的是美国一项保护被监禁者免受宗教歧视的法律。
在一起死刑案件中，一名1997年在阿拉巴马州被判谋杀罪的男子被免于处决，因为最高法院在5月份维持了一项司法认定，即该男子智力存在缺陷，根据其一项先例，不符合死刑适用条件。
简·沃尔夫报道；威尔·邓汉姆编辑
US Supreme Court poised to rule on gun laws and transgender athletes
2026-06-07T10:13:11.229Z / Reuters
WASHINGTON, June 7 (Reuters) – Disputes involving President Donald Trump’s policies on tariffs, immigration and firing regulatory officials have drawn a lot of attention during the Supreme Court’s current term, but the justices also are poised to decide major cases concerning U.S. “culture wars” issues such as guns and transgender athletes.
The court is expected to wrap up its nine-month term by around the end of this month. In two major cases, it is due to rule in challenges to a U.S. law barring users of illegal drugs from owning guns and a Hawaii law that restricts the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public, like most businesses, without the owner’s permission.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
It also is set to decide the legality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female sports teams amid intensifying efforts by the Republican president and various states to restrict the rights of transgender people.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has moved American law steadily rightward in recent years.
GUN RIGHTS
In a nation divided over how to address persistent firearms violence including frequent mass shootings, the court has taken an expansive view of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which enshrines the right to keep and bear arms.
During January arguments in the Hawaii case, the conservative justices appeared ready to expand gun rights again, indicating skepticism on Second Amendment grounds toward the state’s law. Hawaii’s law requires a property owner’s “express authorization” to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public. Four other U.S. states have similar laws.
The court is expected to reject Hawaii’s defense of the law, according to Hayley Lawrence, a gun control advocate who serves as executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.
“It seems to me Hawaii is going to lose 6-3,” Lawrence said.
The court, Lawrence said, also might shed further light on the legal framework it adopted in a 2022 decision in a case called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen for analyzing whether firearms control laws pass Second Amendment muster. The Bruen decision stated that any government regulation restricting firearms must be consistent with the U.S. historical tradition of gun regulation.
DRUG USERS
The court heard arguments in March over the legality of a federal criminal statute banning anyone who is an “unlawful user” of any controlled substance from possessing firearms or ammunition. That provision is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which outlines specific categories of people, such as felons and fugitives, who are barred from possessing firearms.
The case was brought by a Texas man who has said he uses marijuana several times a week and was charged under the law. The same law was invoked in charges brought against then-President Joe Biden’s son Hunter in 2023. The elder Biden later pardoned his son. The Trump administration is defending the law.
University of Chicago law professor Darrell Miller said the court appears skeptical of the provision that prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing a firearm but also is concerned about sweeping too broadly and undermining other parts of the broader law such as the part dealing with keeping guns from felons.
“The court is deciding a drug case but they have one eye on the felony possession statute,” Miller said.
TRANSGENDER ATHLETES
Trump has pursued several policies cracking down on the rights of transgender people, and the Supreme Court last year let his administration implement a ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. military while a legal challenge played out. The administration is backing the Idaho and West Virginia laws, which ban transgender athletes from sports teams for women and girls at public schools including universities.
During January arguments, the conservative justices indicated they are likely to uphold these laws.
Opinion polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose transgender athletes competing in sports teams that align with their gender identity, particularly at the collegiate level.
“There is vast consensus on this issue,” said William Bock, a sports law attorney at the firm Kroger Gardis Regas who supports the Idaho and West Virginia measures. “Seventy to 80 percent of the public doesn’t understand why people are fighting about this.”
Sasha Buchert, an attorney at the LGBT legal rights group Lambda Legal who represents one of the plaintiffs, expressed hope for a ruling striking down the state laws, saying the arguments in the case “went much better” than those in 2024 in a different dispute involving gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. In that case, the court’s conservatives powered a 6-3 ruling upholding Tennessee’s ban on such care.
In a 2020 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law barring workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. But since then, the justices have allowed restrictions on transgender rights to take effect.
For instance, the court in March blocked a series of California laws that could limit the sharing of information with parents about the gender identity of transgender public school students without the child’s permission, handing a victory to Christian parents who challenged these protections.
In addition to the military ban, the Trump administration has pursued policies barring transgender people from using their gender identities on passports and prohibiting transgender federal workers from using bathrooms reflecting their gender identity.
The Supreme Court already has ruled on one major LGBT rights case argued during its current term.
In an 8-1 ruling in March, it rejected a Colorado law that banned psychotherapists from using “conversion” talk therapy intended to change an LGBT minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The justices sided with a Christian licensed counselor in casting the prohibition as an intrusion on the Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of freedom of speech.
IMMIGRATION CASES
Immigration policy also is enmeshed in the American culture wars. The court is due in the coming weeks to rule in two major cases involving Trump policies – his efforts to restrict birthright citizenship and to strip humanitarian protections, called Temporary Protected Status, from hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants.
The arguments in those cases indicated Trump could lose on birthright citizenship, as he did in February on tariffs, but win on Temporary Protected Status.
Also pending is a decision in a religious rights case involving a Rastafarian man who sued Louisiana prison officials after guards shaved him bald in violation of his religious beliefs in a case brought under a U.S. law protecting incarcerated people from religious discrimination.
In a death penalty case, a man convicted of a 1997 murder in Alabama was spared execution after the Supreme Court in May kept in place a judicial finding that he was intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty under one of its precedents.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham