2026-04-01 09:21 EDT / 福克斯新闻
最高法院的裁决可能会彻底改变美国移民政策，并动摇一个多世纪以来的公民权保护体系
作者：布雷安娜·德皮施 福克斯新闻
2026年4月1日 上午6:00 EDT 发布 | 2026年4月1日 上午9:21 EDT 更新
直播观看：特朗普出席关于与生俱来公民权行政令的最高法院辩论
特朗普总统离开白宫，旁听最高法院大法官审议其终止美国与生俱来公民权的行政令是否合法。
新功能 你现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
美国最高法院周三将审理唐纳德·特朗普总统一项旨在终止美国与生俱来公民权的行政令是否合法——这场具有里程碑意义的诉讼可能会深刻影响数百万美国公民和合法居住者的生活。
特朗普本人将出席最高法院口头辩论，司法部长帕姆·邦迪也将到场。总统的出席标志着美国历史上首次有在任总统出席口头辩论，也凸显了特朗普对这起案件的重视。
本案为特朗普诉芭芭拉案，争议焦点是特朗普在连任就职首日签署的一项行政令。该行政令旨在终止几乎所有在美国出生的非法移民父母或持有临时非移民签证的父母所生子女的自动公民权——即“与生俱来公民权”。
本案风险极高，将使一个多世纪以来的行政分支行动、最高法院先例与宪法文本——更具体地说是第十四修正案的公民权条款——陷入冲突。
特朗普政府官员将这项行政令以及最高法院对本案的审理视为其强硬移民政策的关键组成部分，这一议题已成为他第二任白宫任期的标志性特征。
联邦法官叫停特朗普针对所有婴儿的与生俱来公民权禁令，考验下级法院权力
2025年1月20日，在华盛顿特区第一资本竞技场举行的室内就职游行中，唐纳德·特朗普总统在签署行政令后举着该文件。（安娜·莫尼梅克/盖蒂图片社）
反对者认为这一举措违宪且史无前例，可能会影响每年约15万名在美国出生的非公民父母所生的儿童。
若裁决有利于特朗普，将给美国移民政策带来翻天覆地的变化，推翻长期以来被特朗普及其盟友称为错误的公民权观念。这也会对在美国出生的婴儿产生直接的实际影响，迫使国会和特朗普政府立即采取行动明确他们的身份。
以下是今日口头辩论前的关键信息：
争议核心是什么？
大法官们将审议特朗普的第14160号行政令“保护美国公民权的意义与价值”。该行政令要求所有美国政府机构拒绝为非法移民父母所生子女，或持有临时非移民签证的合法留美父母所生子女签发公民身份文件。
该行政令将追溯适用于2025年2月19日之后在美国出生的所有新生儿。
特朗普的行政令签署后数日内引发了大量诉讼。批评者认为，除其他问题外，该行政令违反了第十四修正案的公民权条款，该条款规定“所有在合众国出生并受其管辖的人，都是合众国和他们所居住州的公民”。
与此同时，特朗普政府的律师将辩论焦点放在“受其管辖”这句话上，他们认为该条款在通过时旨在狭义地“在内战后赋予新解放的奴隶及其子女公民权”，而在随后的多年中被误读了。
美国副检察长D·绍尔去年10月敦促最高法院受理此案，称下级法院的两项裁决过于宽泛，并依赖了“错误观点”，即“只要受美国法律管辖范围，在美国领土出生即可获得公民权”的观念已泛滥成灾，造成破坏性后果。
“这些裁决在没有合法依据的情况下，将美国公民的特权授予了数十万不符合条件的人，”他说。
他还辩称，下级法院的裁决越权了，“以破坏我们边境安全的方式，否定了总统及其政府一项至关重要的政策”。
最高法院的大法官们在审议该行政令或在口头辩论中质询律师时，将有大量争议点可以展开。
发生了哪些变化？
最高法院将在周三的辩论中，从不同角度审议第十四修正案文本、法律先例以及1952年《移民与国籍法》文本等问题，这些都是绍尔、美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）以及去年秋天法院同意复审此案后提交的数十份法庭之友摘要的作者所援引的依据。
法律专家告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，他们预计绍尔要说服五名大法官多数派推翻125多年来的先例和本案所涉文本，将面临一场艰苦的战斗。
不过，尽管达成这一共识，法院的保守派阵营仍将面临棘手问题：如何将一个多世纪以来的法院先例与特朗普政府所支持的对第十四修正案的狭义解读相调和。
大法官们可能会密切关注最高法院“美国诉黄金德案”的先例——1898年的一项裁决，最高法院在该案中裁定两名中国移民在美国生下的儿子确实是美国公民。
这起案件被广泛视为与生俱来公民权的现代先例，包括此后数十年最高法院审理的相关案件。
还有人援引国会通过的1952年《移民与国籍法》文本，该文本本质上与第十四修正案的文本一致，规定了在美国出生的人的法律地位，这可能成为另一个有利于移民一方的论据。
“我能立刻想到至少五个理由，说明最高法院应该认定公民权条款如今的含义与它一贯的含义相同，”弗吉尼亚大学法学院专门研究移民和公民权问题的教授阿曼达·弗罗斯特告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
“有文本依据。有公众最初的理解，这当然包括黄金德案，还有之后的五六起最高法院案件，” 弗罗斯特说。
“还有过去一个世纪行政分支的实践，” 她补充道，“这在解释宪法、权衡‘其他所有行为体对一项宪法条款的长期理解是什么’这一问题时也具有相关性。”
“我看不出他们能轻松凑够五票，”耶鲁法学院教授阿克希尔·阿玛尔在接受福克斯新闻数字频道采访时表示，他谈到了所需的多数票。
“哪怕我在一个问题上失利，我也能在其他很多问题上获胜，”阿玛尔说，随后他列举了一系列理由，说明在他看来最高法院可能会支持相关移民群体，以及将于周三代表移民群体出庭的ACLU法律主任塞西莉亚·王。
其他人也同意这一观点，不过保留了更多余地。
“我不认为历史支持特朗普政府的观点，”加州大学伯克利分校法学教授、布什政府前律师约翰·杨告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，他认可政府的论点力度。
法官与特朗普：阻碍白宫议程的关键法庭战役
一名撑着紫色雨伞的女子走过最高法院。（美联社/杰奎琳·马丁）
无国籍新生儿与执法问题
另一个问题将是执法问题。法律专家告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，特朗普的行政令并未明确规定持有临时长期签证的父母在美国所生子女应获得的法律身份，包括学生签证和H1B签证持有者。
弗吉尼亚大学法学院的弗罗斯特指出，国会并未为这类在美国出生但未被授予公民权的儿童提供合法身份途径。这意味着，如果大法官们支持特朗普，政府将需要以极快的速度为新生儿授予某种身份——无论是临时还是长期身份。
“父母可能已经申请了绿卡，”弗罗斯特谈到非法移民父母所生的新生儿时说，前提是法院允许特朗普的行政令生效。“他们可能第二天就能拿到绿卡。”
“但这无关紧要，” 她说。“孩子不会成为公民。”
2025年的一张照片中，美国司法部长帕姆·邦迪与唐纳德·特朗普总统在白宫新闻发布会上同台发言。邦迪的言论有时会让她陷入困境，甚至与政府自身的信息相悖。（盖蒂图片社）
杨、阿玛尔和其他人提到了大法官们在去年另一起与生俱来公民权案件“特朗普诉CASA案”口头辩论中短暂提出的类似担忧。当时政府要求法院审查此案，并非基于行政令的实质内容，而是作为挑战联邦法院法官发出的所谓“普适”或全国性禁令的手段。
尽管聚焦于下级法院的权力，一些大法官仍抽出时间向绍尔询问了与生俱来公民权行政令及其执行问题。
布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官就此向绍尔施压，要求其提供细节：如果特朗普的行政令生效，新生儿在出生时可能需要什么文件。
“在它生效的第二天——这是一个非常实际的问题，即它将如何运作，”卡瓦诺指出，随后向绍尔问道：“医院会如何处理新生儿？各州会如何处理新生儿？” 他希望借此确定出生证明上的公民身份信息。
“我认为他们不会做任何不同的事情，” 绍尔回应道。“行政令第二条规定，联邦官员不会接受来自受该行政令约束的人员的、公民身份标注错误的文件。”
“他们要怎么知道？” 卡瓦诺摇着头追问。
索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官当时表示，政府的立场“完全说不通”，并指出这似乎违反了“四项最高法院先例”，还可能导致一些儿童沦为无国籍人士。
需关注的大法官
尽管很难猜测最高法院大法官们在审议案件时会持何种立场，但有一些保守派大法官已初步对特朗普政府的论点表示怀疑。专家表示，他们的投票可能起到决定性作用。
“就口头辩论而言，我认为你会看到很多人关注首席大法官罗伯茨和卡瓦诺大法官如何看待这一问题，” 杨说。“我认为将由他们来决定多数裁决，” 他说。
杨指出，罗伯茨尤其依赖最高法院的先例，并且一直不愿推翻此前法院作出的裁决——他在“罗伊诉韦德案”中撰写的“颇为痛苦的异议”就是例证。
“我认为真正的问题是：是否有足够的历史证据改变罗伯茨对待先例的态度，” 他说，并指出这位首席大法官往往将制度重要性和一致性放在首位。
杨表示，在与生俱来公民权问题上，有比“罗伊案”更悠久、更被广泛遵循的历史和法院先例，这可能会让保守派转向支持ACLU的立场。
“我们永远不知道最高法院为什么要审理一起案件，” 阿玛尔告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。“但我希望他们审理此案是因为美国理应得到一个答案。”
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
最高法院的裁决预计将于6月底前公布。
布雷安娜·德皮施是福克斯新闻数字频道的全国政治记者，负责报道特朗普政府，重点关注司法部、联邦调查局和其他全国性新闻。她此前曾在《华盛顿观察家报》和《华盛顿邮报》报道全国政治，作品还见于《政客杂志》《科罗拉多公报》等。你可以通过Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com向布雷安娜发送爆料，或在X平台关注她@breanne_dep。
Trump attends Supreme Court as justices weigh birthright citizenship order in high-stakes test
2026-04-01 09:21 EDT / Fox News
A ruling from the high court could have a seismic shift on US immigration policy and more than a century of citizenship protections
By Breanne Deppisch Fox News
Published April 1, 2026 6:00am EDT | Updated April 1, 2026 9:21am EDT
WATCH LIVE: Trump attends Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship order
President Trump departs the White House to listen in as the Supreme Court justices weigh the legality of his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will weigh the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a landmark court fight that could profoundly impact the lives of millions of Americans and lawful U.S. residents.
Trump himself is attending the Supreme Court oral arguments, as is Attorney General Pam Bondi. The president’s attendance marks the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president has attended oral arguments and underscores Trump’s interest in this case.
At issue in the case, Trump v. Barbara, is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or “birthright citizenship” — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S.
The stakes in the case are high, putting on a collision course more than a century of executive branch action, Supreme Court precedent, and the text of the Constitution itself — or, more specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Trump administration officials view the order, and the high court’s consideration of the case, as a key component of his hard-line immigration agenda — an issue that has become a defining feature of his second White House term.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS
President Donald Trump holds up an executive order after signing it during an indoor inauguration parade at Capital One Arena on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Opponents argue the effort is unconstitutional and unprecedented, and could impact an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually to noncitizens.
A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided. It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status.
Here’s what to expect ahead of today’s oral arguments:
What’s at stake?
Justices will weigh Trump’s executive order 14160, or “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directs all U.S. government agencies to refuse to issue citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, or children born to parents who are in the U.S. legally but with temporary, non-immigrant visas.
The order would apply retroactively to all newborns born in the U.S. after Feb. 19, 2025.
Trump’s executive order prompted a flurry of lawsuits in the days after its signing. Critics argued that, among other things, the order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Lawyers for the Trump administration, meanwhile, centered their case on the “subject to jurisdiction thereof” phrase, which they argue was intended at the time of its passage to narrowly “grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children” after the Civil War, and has been misinterpreted in the many years since.
U.S. Solicitor General D. Sauer urged the high court to take up the case last October, arguing that a pair of lower court rulings were overly broad and relied on the “mistaken view” that “birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.”
“Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” he said.
TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices on the high court are seen during President Donald Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address.(Win McNamee/Getty Images)
He also argued that the lower court rulings overstepped, and “invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security.”
Justices on the high court will have no shortage of strings to pull on in considering the executive order or questioning lawyers during oral arguments.
What’s changed?
The Supreme Court will use Wednesday’s arguments to weigh — to varying degrees — the text of the 14th Amendment, legal precedent, and text of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, among other issues cited by Sauer, the ACLU, and authors of the dozens of amicus briefs filed to the court since it agreed to review the case last fall.
Legal experts told Fox News Digital that they expect Sauer could be in for an uphill battle in convincing a five-justice majority to unwind more than 125 years of precedent and text at issue in the case.
Despite their consensus, however, the court’s conservative bloc will still face thorny issues in reconciling more than a century of court precedent with the narrower reading of the 14th Amendment embraced by the Trump administration.
Justices are likely to focus closely on precedent in the Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark — a 1898 ruling in which the Supreme Court ruled that the son of two Chinese immigrants born in the U.S. was indeed a U.S. citizen.
The case is widely considered to be the modern precedent for birthright citizenship, including related cases heard by the high court in the decades since.
Others cited the text of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act statute passed by Congress, which essentially mirrors the text of the 14th Amendment in conferring legal status to persons born in the U.S., as yet another argument that could tip the scales in the migrants’ favor.
“I can think of at least five reasons off the top of my head why the Supreme Court should say that the citizenship clause means today what it has always meant,” Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who specializes in immigration and citizenship issues, told Fox News Digital.
SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE
Protesters gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in May 2025.(Getty Images)
“There is text. There is original public understanding, which certainly includes Wong Kim Ark, but also five or six Supreme Court cases after that,” Frost said.
“There is executive branch practice for the last century,” she added, “which is relevant as well when you’re interpreting the Constitution, and weighing [the question of], ‘What is the longstanding understanding of a constitutional provision by every other actor?’”
“I don’t see how they could easily count to five,” Akhil Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, told Fox News Digital in an interview, speaking of the majority votes needed.
“Even if I lose on one issue, I win on [many others],” Amar said, before ticking through a list of reasons why the Supreme Court, in his view, might swing in favor of the migrant class in question, and ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, who is arguing the case Wednesday on behalf of the migrants.
Others agreed, albeit with a bit more reservation.
“I don’t think history supports the Trump administration’s view,” John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California Berkeley and former lawyer during the Bush administration, told Fox News Digital on the strength of the administration’s case.
JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDA
A woman under a purple umbrella walks past the Supreme Court.(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Stateless newborns, enforcement issues
Another question will be one of enforcement. Trump’s executive order does not codify the legal status that should be conferred to children who are born in the U.S. to holders of temporary, long-term visas — including student visas and H1B visas, legal experts told Fox News Digital.
Frost, the University of Virginia Law professor, noted that Congress has not provided a pathway to legal status for the class of children who would be born in the U.S. and not granted citizenship. This means that the government would essentially need to act at lightning speed to confer some sort of status — be it temporary or longer-term — to newborns, should the justices side with Trump.
“The parents may have applied for a green card,” Frost said of newborns born to illegal immigrants, should the court allow Trump’s order to take force. “They might get the green card the next day.”
“It would not matter,” she said. “The child would not be a citizen.”
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks alongside President Donald Trump at a White House press briefing in this 2025 photo. Bondi’s remarks have at times landed her in hot water and diverged from the administration’s own messaging.(Getty Images)
Yoo, Amar, and others cited similar concerns voiced by justices briefly during oral arguments in another birthright citizenship case,Trump v. CASA, last year. The administration asked the court to review the case not on the merits of the order, but as a means of challenging so-called “universal,” or nationwide injunctions issued by federal court judges.
Despite the focus on the lower court powers, some justices still used their time to question Sauer about the birthright citizenship order and its implementation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, pressed Sauer for details on what documentation newborns might need at birth should Trump’s executive order take force.
“On the day after it goes into effect — it’s just a very practical question of how it’s going to work,” Kavanaugh noted, before asking Sauer: “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” he asked, in order to determine their citizenship on a birth certificate.
“I don’t think they do anything different,” Sauer said in response. “What the executive order says in Section Two is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.”
“How are they going to know that?” Kavanaugh pressed, shaking his head.
The government’s position “makes no sense whatsoever,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at the time, before noting that it appeared to violate “four Supreme Court precedents,” and risked leaving some children stateless.
The Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C.(AP/Jon Elswick)
Justices to watch
While it’s difficult to speculate how justices on the high court might position themselves in considering a case, there are some conservative justices that have signaled early skepticism about the Trump administration’s arguments. Their votes could prove to be decisive, experts said.
“In terms of oral arguments, I think what you’re going to see is a lot of attention paid to how Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh view the issue in particular,” Yoo said. “I think it will be up to them” to determine the majority ruling, he said.
Roberts, in particular, often relies heavily on Supreme Court precedent, Yoo noted, and has been wary of overturning decisions made under previous courts — pointing to the “sort of anguished dissent” he authored in Roe v. Wade.
“I think that’s really the question: whether there’s going to be enough historical evidence to change Robert’s mind about how to treat precedent,” he said, noting the chief justice tends to view questions of institutional importance and consistency as top-of-mind.
When it comes to birthright citizenship, Yoo said, there is a much longer history and court precedent that is older and “more well-followed” than Roe ever was, he noted, which could swing the conservatives in the ACLU’s favor.
“We never know why the Supreme Court decides to hear a case,” Amar told Fox News Digital. “But I’m hoping that they heard the case because America deserves an answer.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A decision from the high court is expected by late June.
Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.
