发布于2026年2月13日，美国东部时间凌晨4:00 | 作者：约翰·弗里茨
美国华盛顿特区最高法院，2026年1月27日，星期二。
（图片来源：Bloomberg/Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images）
唐纳德·特朗普总统领导的政府正以前所未有的速度，在未经最高法院邀请的情况下介入备受瞩目的上诉案件，支持保守派团体在涉及枪支、宗教和气候变化的案件中争取有利结果。
最高法院通常会邀请司法部就是否受理上诉发表意见，而司法部副部长（即政府最高上诉律师）的建议在最高法院一直具有特殊分量。
然而，副检察长D.约翰·绍尔（D. John Sauer）的办公室正比以往更积极地利用这种关系，敦促最高法院受理与总统议程一致的文化战争案件——即使最高法院并未要求司法部提供意见。政府在至少五个案件中未经邀请介入，最近一起是涉及宗教幼儿园的潜在重大上诉。
[相关文章：美国最高法院大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚于2月13日（周六）被发现死亡，享年79岁。他是历史上最具影响力的保守派大法官之一。史蒂夫·佩特韦/祖马新闻社/新闻通讯]
[如果你想争取最高法院大法官的支持，可以引用安东宁·斯卡利亚的观点。阅读时间：8分钟]
“司法部正利用副检察长这一独特职位，不仅推动现任总统的政策和政治议程，还推动共和党更广泛的意识形态议程，”美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）最高法院分析师、乔治敦大学法学院教授史蒂夫·弗拉德克（Steve Vladeck）表示。
副检察长办公室在特朗普第二任期内，很大程度上避免了司法部其他部门的政治动荡。和司法部其他所有人一样，绍尔的工作取决于特朗普的意愿——但他的职位（常被称为“第十位大法官”）长期以来被认为不仅对政府，也对最高法院负有责任。
迄今为止，绍尔成功平衡了这些有时相互冲突的要求。这个由6名保守派法官组成的法院去年多次支持特朗普政府，在紧急案件中支持率达到80%。总检察长帕姆·邦迪（Pam Bondi）在本周早些时候与众议院民主党人激烈对抗前，迅速吹嘘这一成绩。
“我们在联邦最高法院获得了24项有利裁决，”邦迪周三在众议院司法委员会上说，随后又补充道：“更多裁决即将到来。”
但这种双重责任意味着，如果副检察长似乎偏离过去的惯例，转向更多政治领域，将面临额外审查。
当上诉案件提交至最高法院时，各方会花费数周时间提交书面论点，试图获得四名大法官的投票以批准上诉。虽然第三方团体通常会提交法庭之友简报（amicus curiae briefs）试图影响这一决定，但副检察长这样做尤为引人注目——部分原因是这种情况极为罕见。
特朗普政府提交的五份未经邀请的简报，代表了比前任政府更多的干预。
例如，拜登政府在四年任期内的实质性案件中未提交类似简报，但在2021年俄克拉荷马州的死刑案件紧急上诉中，主动提出了建议。根据SCOTUSblog的审查，克林顿政府在八年任期内提交了五份简报，其中只有两份是在特朗普第一任期内提交的。
绍尔的办公室未回应对CNN提出的一系列关于如何决定介入以及使用何种流程的问题。
[相关文章：唐纳德·特朗普总统4月2日在华盛顿特区白宫玫瑰园就关税问题发表讲话。卡洛斯·巴里亚/路透社]
[最高法院对特朗普关税的裁决何时公布？阅读时间：6分钟]
但一位熟悉司法部做法的消息人士指出，这种做法似乎有效：法院迄今为止在五起案件中，有三起同意了副检察长办公室的建议（另外两起上诉仍在等待中）。该消息人士强调，提交未经邀请的简报的做法仍然极为罕见。
“副检察长在调卷令阶段（ certiorari stage）极少提交未经邀请的法庭之友简报，”前副检察长助理、现任联邦上诉法院法官帕特里夏·米利特（Patricia Millett）2009年在学术期刊上写道，“毕竟，如果法院认为政府的观点对其裁决有帮助，它会主动要求。”
米利特当时写道，司法部的可信度“在很大程度上取决于在要求法院行使管辖权之前，始终如一地应用极其严格和精确的标准。”
支持宗教幼儿园
在最新的未经邀请的简报中，司法部于1月底敦促最高法院受理一起涉及科罗拉多州法律的上诉，该法律要求幼儿园不论种族、民族、宗教、性取向、性别认同、残疾和其他因素，都必须招收所有儿童。
丹佛大主教管区正在挑战该法律。该教会由宗教公共利益组织贝克特（Becket）代表，希望获得公共资金支持其天主教幼儿园，但拒绝招收那些在教会反对同性婚姻和变性身份问题上“意见不合”的家庭的孩子。
在简报中，绍尔警告说，支持科罗拉多州法律的下级法院意见可能“阻碍全国大部分地区的宗教活动”。近年来，保守派最高法院在类似案件中多次支持宗教团体，认定此类法律实质上歧视宗教并违反第一修正案。
为证明政府干预的合理性，绍尔告诉法院，美国部分出于“保护宗教自由行使的重大利益”。
贝克特曾在最高法院成功代理多起宗教案件，特朗普政府的简报对他们而言意义重大——这肯定了他们关于大法官应受理上诉的论点。
“回顾他们过去提交的一些案件，我认为绝大多数最终都会提交给最高法院，”贝克特高级法律顾问尼克·里夫斯（Nick Reaves）在谈到司法部决定介入上诉（法律术语称为调卷令申请）时表示。
“副检察长知道什么样的上诉值得受理，也知道何时法院应该介入某个问题，”里夫斯补充道。
最高法院将于今年晚些时候决定是否审理此案。
绍尔还在另一起涉及夏威夷法律的重大第二修正案案件中提交了未经邀请的简报，该法律禁止人们未经财产所有者明确批准携带枪支进入私人财产。特朗普政府敦促最高法院受理此案并推翻夏威夷的法律，声称该州法律“实质上消除了”在公共场所携带枪支的第二修正案权利。
在最高法院同意这一建议后，邦迪在社交媒体上吹嘘政府的介入。
“正如我上任后不久所说，第二修正案不是二等权利，”她在X平台上写道，“我的司法部将继续成为历史上最支持第二修正案的司法部。”
最高法院于1月举行了口头辩论，多数大法官表示准备推翻该法律。预计6月底会作出裁决。
精挑细选的益处
政府自行介入的一些案件争议较小。其中一起涉及一名早期囚犯针对联邦监狱官员的诉讼，如果允许继续，司法部几乎肯定会介入。另一起涉及一名被判处死刑的阿拉巴马州囚犯，这一案件可能直接影响联邦政府在联邦死囚区处决囚犯的能力。
但其他案件涉及具有全国意义的问题。
9月，政府介入了一起重大环境上诉，涉及地方政府是否可以起诉化石燃料生产商，要求其赔偿气候变化造成的损害。司法部敦促最高法院受理此案，并推翻科罗拉多州最高法院允许对森科能源公司（Suncor Energy）和埃克森美孚公司（Exxon Mobil）提起诉讼的裁决。
在向最高法院提交的简报中，司法部警告称，如果不介入，“全国各地的地方政府都可能起诉世界上任何对全球气候变化有贡献的人。”
最高法院可能在几周内宣布是否受理此案。
[视频广告反馈]
最高法院史上最具影响力的任期？
4:31 • 来源：CNN
最高法院史上最具影响力的任期？
资深上诉律师约翰·埃尔伍德（John Elwood）统计了特朗普政府提交的七份此类简报，包括两起紧急案件。
“从绝对数量来看，数字仍然很小，”埃尔伍德本周在SCOTUSblog上写道，“但相对于历史惯例，增幅意义重大。一个曾经很少使用的机制现在被定期采用。”
但曾在副检察长办公室工作并为安东宁·斯卡利亚大法官担任过书记员的资深上诉律师威廉·杰伊（William Jay）表示，拜登政府比特朗普政府更不太可能提交未经邀请的简报，可能有更实际的原因：民主党政府可能认为，某些案件不希望由当前最高法院裁决。
“拜登的司法部可能提交较少的简报，不是因为不愿提交法庭之友简报，而是因为不想让这些案件由现任最高法院裁决，”杰伊解释道。
最高法院 | 联邦机构 | 唐纳德·特朗普 | 宗教
[查看所有主题]
[脸书 推特 [电子邮件] 链接]
链接已复制！
[广告反馈]
Nobody asked: Trump’s DOJ steps up uninvited recommendations at Supreme Court
Published Feb 13, 2026, 4:00 AM ET | By John Fritze
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026.
Bloomberg/Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
President Donald Trump’s administration is stepping into high-profile appeals at the Supreme Court without invitation at an unprecedented pace, supporting conservative groups in cases dealing with guns, religion and climate change.
The court regularly invites the Justice Department to offer its view on whether to hear appeals, and recommendations from the solicitor general, the administration’s top appellate attorney, have long carried a special weight at the Supreme Court.
But Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s office is using the relationship more aggressively than in the past, urging the Supreme Court to take on culture war cases that align with the president’s agenda — even when the court has not asked for the Justice Department’s input. The administration has butt into at least five cases without invitation, most recently a potentially significant appeal involving religious preschools.
Ad Feedback
[Related article U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was found dead on Saturday, February 13, was one of the most influential conservative justices in history. He was 79. Steve Petteway/ZumaPress/Newscom If you want to win over Supreme Court justices, quote Antonin Scalia 8 min read]
“It’s using the solicitor general’s unique position as a way to push not just the policy and political agenda of the current president, but the broader ideological agenda of the Republican Party,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
The solicitor general’s office has largely avoided the political turmoil churning through the rest of the Justice Department during Trump’s second term. Like everyone else in the department, Sauer works at Trump’s pleasure — but his position, often referred to as the “10th justice” — has also long been viewed as having a responsibility to the Supreme Court, not just the administration.
And so far, Sauer has managed to successfully balance those sometimes-competing demands. The 6-3 conservative court repeatedly sided with Trump last year, backing the administration 80% of the time on its emergency docket. It is a record that Attorney General Pam Bondi was quick to tout ahead of a fiery confrontation with House Democrats earlier this week.
“We’ve obtained 24 favorable rulings at the US Supreme Court,” Bondi told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday before tacking on a promise. “Even more to come.”
But that dual responsibility can mean added scrutiny if it appears the solicitor general is veering from past practice into more political territory.
When an appeal lands at the Supreme Court, the parties spend weeks submitting written arguments trying to get the vote of the four justices needed to grant an appeal. While third-party groups often submit friend-of-the-court briefs attempting to influence that decision, it is especially notable when the solicitor general does so – in part because of how infrequently it happens.
The five uninvited briefs filed by the Trump administration represented more intervention than previous administrations exercised.
The Biden administration, for instance, did not file any similar briefs in merits cases over four years, though it did submit an unsolicited recommendation in an emergency appeal in 2021 in a death penalty case from Oklahoma. The Clinton administration filed five briefs over eight years in office, according to a review by SCOTUSblog. Only two were filed during Trump’s first, four-year term.
Sauer’s office did not respond to a series of questions from CNN about how the decision is made to intervene and the process that it uses.
[Related article President Donald Trump delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 2. Carlos Barria/Reuters Where is the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s tariffs? 6 min read]
But a source familiar with the Justice Department’s approach noted that it appeared to be working: The court has so far agreed with recommendations from the solicitor general’s office in three out of five cases. (Two other appeals are pending.) That source stressed that the practice of filing uninvited briefs still remains exceedingly rare.
“Only infrequently does the solicitor general file unsolicited amicus briefs at the certiorari stage,” Patricia Millett, a former assistant to the solicitor general who is now a federal appeals court judge, wrote in an academic journal in 2009. “After all, if the court believes that the government’s views would be helpful to its decision, it will ask for them.”
The department’s credibility, Millett wrote then, “depends, in large part, on consistently applying extremely selective and exacting criteria before asking the court to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Backing religious preschools
In its most recent uninvited brief, the Justice Department in late January urged the Supreme Court to take up an appeal involving a Colorado law that requires preschools to enroll children regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability and other factors.
The Archdiocese of Denver is challenging that law. The church, represented by the religious public interest firm Becket, wants to receive public funding for its Catholic preschools but decline to admit students from families who don’t “see eye to eye” on the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage and those who identify as transgender.
In the filing, Sauer warned that the lower court opinions supporting the Colorado law could “stymie religious exercise in major portions of the country.” The conservative Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with religious groups in recent years in similar cases, finding that such laws effectively discriminate against religion and violate the First Amendment.
To justify the administration’s intervention, Sauer told the court that the United States had, in part, a “substantial interest in the preservation of the free exercise of religion.”
For Becket, which has successfully argued many religious cases at the high court, the brief from the Trump administration was huge – an affirmation of its argument that the justices should grant their appeal.
“Looking back at some of the past cases they’ve filed in, I think the vast majority of them end up going to the court,” Nick Reaves, a senior counsel with Becket, said of the Justice Department’s decision to enter into an appeal, known as a petition for a writ certiorari in legal speak.
“The solicitor general knows what makes a good petition and knows when it’s important for the court to weigh in on an issue,” Reaves said.
The court will decide whether to hear the case later this year.
Sauer also submitted an uninvited brief in a significant Second Amendment case involving a Hawaii law that bars people from carrying guns onto private property without the explicit approval of the property owner. The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and rule against Hawaii, claiming that the state’s law “functionally eliminates” the general Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public.
After the Supreme Court agreed with that recommendation, Bondi touted the administration’s involvement in a social media post.
“As I said soon after taking office, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” she wrote on X. “My Justice Department will continue to be the most pro-Second Amendment Justice Department in history.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in January and a majority of justices signaled they were prepared to strike down the law. A decision is expected by the end of June.
Benefits of being picky
Some of the cases the administration has entered on its own are far less controversial. One involved an early-stage prisoner lawsuit against federal prison officials that almost certainly would have drawn in the Justice Department if allowed to continue. Another involved an Alabama prisoner who has been sentenced to death, a case that could have direct implications for the federal government’s ability to execute prisoners on federal death row.
But other cases deal with issues of national significance.
In September, the administration weighed in on a major environmental appeal dealing with whether local governments may sue fossil fuel producers for damages from climate change. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to take up that case and overturn a decision from Colorado’s highest court that allowed the litigation against Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil to move forward.
In its brief to the Supreme Court, DOJ warned that without intervention, “every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change.”
The Supreme Court could announce whether it will hear that appeal within weeks.
Video Ad Feedback
The Supreme Court’s most consequential term yet?
4:31 • Source: CNN
The Supreme Court’s most consequential term yet?
4:31
John Elwood, a veteran appellate attorney, counted seven such briefs filed by the Trump administration, including two that came in emergency cases.
“In absolute terms, the numbers remain small,” Elwood wrote on SCOTUSblog this week. “But relative to historical practice, the increase is meaningful. A mechanism once used sparingly is now being deployed with some regularity.”
But William Jay, a veteran appellate attorney who served in the solicitor general’s office and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, said that there may be a more practical reason why the Biden administration was less likely to file uninvited briefs than Trump: the Democratic administration probably reasoned it had to be more selective about the cases it urged the conservative court to hear.
Biden’s DOJ may have filed less “not because it was reluctant to file amicus briefs,” Jay said, “but because it didn’t want those cases decided by the current Supreme Court.”
Supreme Court Federal agencies Donald Trump Religion
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link
Link Copied!
Ad Feedback