2026-04-01T19:14:09.274Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨、蒂尔尼·斯尼德、德文·科尔
更新于8分钟前
2026年4月1日，美国东部时间下午3:28更新
发布于2026年4月1日，美国东部时间下午3:14
这张法庭速写描绘了2026年4月1日周三，在美国华盛顿特区最高法院，美国副检察长D.约翰·索尔与唐纳德·特朗普总统就特朗普试图终止出生公民权的行政命令进行口头辩论的场景。
达娜·弗科特伦 绘
唐纳德·特朗普总统推动终止自动出生公民权的举措，在周三遭到了最高法院法官的质疑，自由派和保守派大法官均对重新定义美国一个多世纪以来的公民权认知提出了尖锐问题。
在超过两小时的辩论中，特朗普本人到场约75分钟，大法官们逐一驳斥了政府律师——副检察长D.约翰·索尔的论点，即第十四修正案的制定者是否有意将大量非法移民和合法移民的子女排除在“在美国境内出生即可获得公民权”的保障之外。
如果特朗普希望通过到场影响大法官，这一做法似乎并未奏效。
相关直播报道：最高法院对特朗普的出生公民权行政命令持怀疑态度
如果判决结果符合本次辩论的论点，这将是特朗普政府第二项被由三名其任命的大法官组成的保守派占优的最高法院推翻的重大政策。最高法院今年还驳回了特朗普全面的全球紧急关税政策。
以下是本次最高法院历史性辩论的要点：
大法官们对特朗普的历史解读持怀疑态度
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨为这场对特朗普不利的激烈辩论定下了基调，他向索尔发问，众人公认的少数几类被排除在出生公民权之外的“特殊”“特例”人群，如何能像特朗普现在主张的那样，适用于数量庞大的在美国境内出生的群体。
特朗普和索尔称该行政命令旨在打击“生育旅游”，但罗伯茨质疑，既然“生育旅游”这一概念在第十四修正案制定时并不存在，制定者又怎能预见其措辞会被如此使用。
“我们如今身处一个全新的世界，”索尔说道。他补充道，全球80亿人口“只需乘坐一次飞机，就能生下一名美国公民”。
“没错，世界变了，”罗伯茨反驳道，“但宪法没变。”
自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根指责政府依赖“相当晦涩的资料”来支撑其论点。特朗普任命的大法官尼尔·戈萨奇则向索尔追问，特朗普对“居所”的解读——以及其在判定谁符合出生公民权资格时的所谓应用——在修正案制定的19世纪是否合理，尤其是当时并不存在当前的移民限制措施。
另一位特朗普任命的大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特则质疑，政府提出的以父母效忠为依据的理论，将如何适用于刚获得解放的奴隶的子女。她表示，这些奴隶的父母很多是刚从非洲被贩卖而来，可能仍对其被贩运的故土抱有效忠之心。她向索尔问道，如果特朗普提出的以父母效忠为依据的例外情况真的存在，第十四修正案又怎能适用于所有奴隶及其子女？
索尔表示，在当时，奴隶普遍被认为是在美国拥有居所的。
“如果你查阅19世纪的资料，会发现尽管他们的入境可能违法，但19世纪内战前的法律从未将他们的存在视为非法，”索尔说道。
收听罗伯茨大法官在出生公民权辩论中的关键发言片段
3:28 • 来源：CNN
戈萨奇、卡瓦诺暗示特朗普或遭遇窄幅败诉
包括戈萨奇和特朗普任命的另一名大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺在内的多名保守派大法官暗示，此案甚至无需涉及特朗普政府提出的广泛宪法论点即可作出判决。原因在于，在第十四修正案批准数十年后，国会通过了与重建时期修正案措辞一致的法律。
相关论点如下：到20世纪中期，国会认为第十四修正案的公民权条款的解释范围几乎涵盖了所有在美国境内出生的人。如果当时议员们希望采用不同的解释，那么他们在法律中使用与修正案完全相同的措辞就说不通了。
“如果你在1940年和1952年任职于国会，并且希望……消除歧义，那你为什么要重复使用相同的措辞，而不是选择其他表述？”卡瓦诺在辩论中一段尤为引人关注的对话中问道。
索尔回应称，国会只是将“判定谁有权获得出生公民权的基准”写入法律，并未涉及所有潜在的例外情况。
相关报道：最高法院将审议出生公民权的未来。以下是他们的家族如何来到美国 11分钟阅读
但双方在这一点上的来回交锋颇具意义，因为卡瓦诺的问题呼应了美国公民自由联盟提出的核心论点。美国公民自由联盟律师塞西莉亚·王曾辩称，如果国会无意涵盖移民群体，它本应明确说明。
戈萨奇一度似乎表示赞同。
“修正案与法律之间已经相隔了漫长的岁月，”他说道。
戈萨奇巧妙地暗示索尔可以在法律层面而非宪法层面败诉。这样的判决结果仍将推翻特朗普的行政命令，但会给政府留出通过修改法律推动变革的机会。而如果判决认定第十四修正案禁止特朗普的行政命令，其影响将更为深远持久。
索尔似乎拒绝了这一窄幅败诉的提议，否认法院可以在成文法和宪法之间作出区分。
“你希望本法院作出直截了当的宪法判决——无论胜诉败诉？”戈萨奇问道。
“我们认为成文法和宪法的含义是一致的，”索尔说道，“如果法院持不同意见，显然我们更倾向于在成文法而非宪法层面作出不利判决。”
原告方在“居所”问题上遭遇棘手提问
作为代表质疑特朗普行政命令的移民群体出庭的律师，王在开始回应九位大法官的提问时，不难发现其为美国长期以来的出生公民权传统辩护的论点并未面临过于严苛的质疑。
“随便问一个美国人我们的公民权规则是什么，他们都会告诉你，每一个出生在这里的人都是公民，”王在开场陈述中说道。
尽管如此，王仍遭到了意识形态两端大法官的尖锐质询。他们向她指出，她认为应作为本案判决依据的19世纪标志性判例，给她的立场带来了一些问题。
美国公民自由联盟律师塞西莉亚·王在口头辩论结束后在最高法院外发言。
曼德尔·恩根/法新社/盖蒂图片社
政府的核心论点之一是，19世纪授予华裔男子金康（音译）公民权的“美国诉王金安案”，反复强调了一个观点：要获得出生公民权，个人必须有意永久居住在美国——换言之，必须拥有居所。
特朗普政府和美国公民自由联盟就居所要求是否适用、谁符合资格的问题展开了激烈争执。
“你对‘居所’一词的使用轻描淡写，”罗伯茨对王说道，“该词在判决中出现了20次之多。”
“这难道不值得至少引起重视吗？”他说道。
随后，戈萨奇询问，在“王金安案”判决后，美国法律界对“居所”在公民权语境下的含义存在严重分歧，法院该如何处理这一情况。戈萨奇将这种分歧描述为“一团乱麻”。
“我知道你这边也有很多有力论据。但面对众多权威法律人士都认为这仍是一个悬而未决的问题，我们该怎么办？”他问道。
就连法院的自由派成员埃琳娜·卡根大法官也在某一时刻针对1898年的这项判决发问：“那20处提及居所的文字究竟有何作用？”
王坚持认为，这些文字并非该案判决的核心，因此今日的法院无需为此担忧。
特朗普到场旁听创下历史纪录
就在几周前，特朗普还曾抨击多名法院大法官，称那些投票反对其全球关税政策的大法官“是家族的耻辱”，而如今他却亲临现场，直面掌握其出生公民权政策命运的大法官，创下了历史纪录。
据最高法院历史学会称，尽管历届总统有时会出席最高法院的仪式活动，但此前从未有现任总统到场旁听口头辩论。
特朗普曾多次暗示可能出席过往的辩论，但均在临近时刻取消。最高法院的规则和传统——包括禁止摄像和现代技术设备——给总统到访带来了后勤障碍。
最高法院大法官对特朗普政府终止自动出生公民权的举措持怀疑态度
6:47 • 来源：CNN
但特朗普在辩论前一天对记者表示，他认为这一问题足够重要，值得亲自到场。本周早些时候，他在社交媒体上抱怨“愚蠢的”司法系统，并在椭圆形办公室向记者预览了索尔的辩论论点。
总统坐在公众席的前排，这片区域通常仅供国会议员和其他特邀嘉宾使用。索尔向法院陈述完毕后，他于美国东部时间上午11:20离场。
“我们是世界上唯一一个愚蠢到允许‘生育权’公民身份的国家！”特朗普离开最高法院后在社交媒体上发帖称。
特朗普行政命令的实际影响未受重视
大部分辩论都围绕历史和第十四修正案的含义展开，而对于特朗普行政命令生效后的实际影响关注甚少。
根据移民政策研究所的估算，在未来50年里，平均每年约有25.5万名在美国境内出生的儿童，会因其父母的身份而无法从出生起就获得美国公民身份。该行政命令不仅会影响非法入境的移民，还会波及“童年入境暂缓遣返计划”（DACA）受益者或其他人道主义项目受益者等合法居留人群。
就连美国公民也必须额外付出诸多手续，才能为新生儿证明公民身份。
大法官们似乎并未特别关注这些后果，至少未就此展开深入讨论。唯有法院自由派成员凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官就这些实际问题向索尔发问，询问孕妇是否需要通过作证来证明其有意永久留在美国。
“你是不是暗示，当婴儿出生时，人们必须出示文件？这会发生在产房里吗？根据你的规则，我们该如何判定新生儿是否为美国公民？”杰克逊说道。
示威者在最高法院外集会，等待大法官周三就相关案件进行口头辩论。
J.斯科特·阿普尔怀特/美联社
当其他大法官提及判定出生公民权资格的程序时，他们通常是在探讨这些程序在19世纪会如何运作，试图揣摩第十四修正案制定者的初衷。
巴雷特表示，根据特朗普的行政命令解决谁有权获得公民权的纠纷，“在某些应用场景中可能会一团糟”。
她特别询问了“弃婴”——即父母身份不明或被父母遗弃的儿童——的情况。索尔援引联邦法律称，这类儿童将被涵盖在内。
“是、是、是，”巴雷特反驳道，“但宪法层面呢？”
“你该如何裁决这些案件？”巴雷特继续问道，“对某些人来说，包括美国公民在内，在出生时你无法知晓他们是否有留居的意图。”
索尔称，实际上这不会成为问题，因为特朗普的行政命令取决于“可客观核实的事项，即移民身份”。
此前所有审理过特朗普行政命令合法性的法院均驳回了该命令。在本案中，新罕布什尔州的一家美国地区法院在一项集体诉讼中，禁止对任何受该政策影响的婴儿执行特朗普的行政命令。在上诉法院有机会审查此案之前，特朗普已向最高法院提起上诉。
最高法院预计将在6月底前对本案作出判决。
美国有线电视新闻网的奥斯汀·卡尔佩珀对本文亦有贡献。
Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship
2026-04-01T19:14:09.274Z / CNN
By John Fritze, Tierney Sneed, Devan Cole
Updated 8 min ago
Updated Apr 1, 2026, 3:28 PM ET
PUBLISHED Apr 1, 2026, 3:14 PM ET
This courtroom sketch shows US Solicitor General D. John Sauer and President Donald Trump during oral arguments over Trump’s executive order that attempts to end automatic birthright citizenship at the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026.
Dana Verkouteren
President Donald Trump’s push to end automatic birthright citizenship was met by a suspicious Supreme Court on Wednesday, with liberal and conservative justices raising tough questions about reimagining the way citizenship has been understood in the United States for more than a century.
Over the course of more than two hours, with Trump himself in attendance for roughly 75 minutes, the justices picked away at the arguments raised by the administration’s attorney – Solicitor General D. John Sauer – about whether the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to exclude children born to a wide swath of illegal and legal immigrants from the promise of citizenship by virtue of being born on US soil.
If Trump hoped his presence might influence the justices, it didn’t seem to work.
Related live story Supreme Court skeptical of Trump’s birthright citizenship order
Should the decision reflect the arguments, it will mark the second major Trump administration policy to fall at the hands of a conservative Supreme Court on which three of nine justices were appointed by the president himself. The court also struck down Trump’s sweeping emergency global tariffs this year.
Here are takeaways from the court’s historic arguments:
Justices were dubious of Trump’s take on history
Chief Justice John Roberts set the tone for the rough arguments for Trump when he asked Sauer how the “quirky” and “idiosyncratic” examples of who everyone agrees was excluded from birthright citizenship could be applied to a much larger class of individuals born on US soil as Trump is arguing now.
Trump and Sauer said the order is intended to end “birth tourism,” but Roberts questioned how the framers of the 14th Amendment could possibly have foreseen their words being used that way given that no such concept existed at the time.
“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said. 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.”
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan accused the administration of relying on “pretty obscure sources” to make its arguments. Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump nominated to the court, pressed Sauer on whether Trump’s interpretation of “domicile” – and its supposed application in deciding who qualifies for birthright citizenship – would have made sense in the 19th century when the amendment was framed, especially since the current restrictions on immigration didn’t exist at the time.
Demonstrators rally outside the Supreme Court before justices hear oral arguments.
Tom Brenner/AP
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, meanwhile, questioned how the administration’s embrace of a theory of a parent’s allegiance would have applied to children of newly freed slaves. Some of those children would have had slave parents who were only recently brought from Africa and thus might still have felt allegiance to the lands from which they were trafficked, she said. How can it be, she asked Sauer, that the amendment applied to all slaves and their children, if the Trump-proposed exceptions around a theory of parents’ allegiance existed?
Sauer suggested that, at the time, slaves were widely understood to have domicile in the United States.
“If you look at the 19th-century sources, what you see is that even though their entry may have been unlawful, 19th-century antebellum law never treated their presence as unlawful,” Sauer said.
Hear key exchange from Justice Roberts during birthright citizenship arguments
3:28 • Source: CNN
Hear key exchange from Justice Roberts during birthright citizenship arguments
3:28
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh suggest narrow loss for Trump
Several of the court’s conservatives, including Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump nominee, suggested the case could be decided without even reaching the broad constitutional arguments the Trump administration is raising. That is because Congress, decades after the 14th Amendment was ratified, passed laws mirroring the Reconstruction-era amendment’s language.
The argument goes like this: By the mid-20th century, Congress understoodthat the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was being interpreted to sweep in virtually everyone born in the country. If lawmakers wanted a different interpretation then it wouldn’t make sense for lawmakers to include identical language to the amendment in the law.
“If you’re in Congress in 1940 and 1952 and you want … to eliminate ambiguity, why do you repeat the same language rather than choosing something different,” Kavanaugh asked in a particularly notable exchange during the arguments.
Sauer responded by arguing that Congress was only putting into law a “baseline” for who would be entitled to birthright citizenship, not addressing all of the potential exceptions.
Related article Supreme Court justices will consider the future of birthright citizenship. Here’s how their families came to America 11 min read
But the back-and-forth on the point was notable because Kavanaugh’s question mirrored a key argument the American Civil Liberties Union was making. If Congress didn’t intend to cover immigrants, the ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang has argued, it would have said so.
Gorsuch, at one point, seemed to agree.
“There was a lot of water over the dam” between the amendment and the law, he said.
Gorsuch seemed, subtly, to offer Sauer to lose the case on the law rather than the Constitution. Such an outcome would still strike down Trump’s order, but it would give the administration an opportunity to try to push through a change in the law. A ruling that says the 14th Amendment barred Trump’s order would have far more permanence.
Sauer seemed to decline the offer for a narrow loss by denying that the court could read a difference between the statute and the Constitution.
“This is a straight-up constitutional ruling you want from this court — win, lose or draw?” Gorsuch asked.
“We think that the statute and the Constitution mean the same thing,” Sauer said. “If the court disagrees, obviously, we’d prefer an adverse ruling – if the court’s going to do that – on a statutory basis (rather) than a constitutional basis.”
Plaintiffs face tough question on ‘domicile’
As Wang, who was arguing for a group of immigrants challenging Trump’s order, began fielding questions from the nine, it became clear that her arguments in defense of the US’ long-held tradition of birthright citizenship faced a less skeptical bench.
“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they’ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said during her opening statement.
Still, Wang was nonetheless hit with some difficult inquiries from justices on both ends of the ideological spectrum. They pressed her on the fact that the landmark 19th-century precedent she believes should decide the current case in her favor raises some problems for her position.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Cecilia Wang speaks outside the US Supreme Court, after oral arugments had concluded.
Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
One of the government’s leading arguments is that US v. Wong Kim Ark, which granted citizenship to a man of Chinese descent in the 19th century, repeatedly stressed the idea that in order to be entitled to birthright citizenship, a person must intend to permanently live in the country — in other words, to be domiciled.
The Trump administration and the ACLU fought bitterly over whether a domicile requirement applied and who would qualify.
“You dismiss the use of the word of ‘domicile,’” Roberts told Wang. “It appears in the opinion 20 different times.”
“Isn’t it at least something to be concerned about?” he said.
Later, Gorsuch asked what the court should do with the fact that after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the legal community in the country was sharply divided on what being domiciled meant in the context of citizenship. Gorsuch described that disagreement as a “mess.”
“I know you’ve got a lot of good stuff on your side too. But what do we do with the fact that many, many sound legal authorities thought it remained an open question?” he asked.
Even Justice Elena Kagan, a member the court’s liberal wing, asked at one point of the 1898 decision: “What are those 20 domicile words doing there?”
Wang stuck with her contention that those words were not central to the holding in that case and therefore not an issue for today’s court to worry about.
Trump makes history by showing up to arguments
Just weeks after he derided several members of the court – calling those who voted against his global tariffs an “embarrassment to their families” – Trump made history by showing up in person to stare down the justices who hold the fate of his birthright citizenship policy in their hands.
Though presidents have sometimes appeared at the Supreme Court for ceremonies, no sitting president has previously attended an argument, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Trump repeatedly floated that he might attend past arguments, only to back out when the time came. The rules and traditions of the Supreme Court – including that neither cameras nor modern technology are permitted – present logistical hurdles to a presidential visit.
Supreme Court justices sound skeptical of Trump Administration’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship
6:47 • Source: CNN
Supreme Court justices sound skeptical of Trump Administration’s effort to end automatic birthright …
6:47
But Trump indicated to reporters on the eve of the arguments that he felt the issue was important enough to come in person. The president complained about the “STUPID” judiciary in a social media post earlier in the week, and he offered a preview of Sauer’s arguments with reporters in the Oval Office.
The president sat in the front row of the public section, an area usually reserved for members of Congress and other special guests. He left at 11:20 a.m. ET, after Sauer’s presentation to the court was over.
“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Trump posted on social media after leaving the Supreme Court.
Real-world impacts of Trump’s order receive little attention
Most of the debate dealt with history and the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Far less attention was paid to the practical impacts of allowing Trump’s order to take effect.
Over the next 50 years, an average of roughly 255,000 children born in the US every year would start life without US citizenship based on their parents’ status, according to an estimate from the Migration Policy Institute. The order would affect not only immigrants in the country illegally but also people like DACA recipients or those who benefit from other humanitarian programs and who are lawfully present.
Even US citizens would have to jump through additional hoops to verify the citizenship of their newborns.
The justices did not seem particularly concerned about any of those consequences, or at least did not discuss them at length. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, grilled Sauer about those practical issues, asking him if pregnant women would need to sit for depositions to attest to their desire to stay in the US permanently.
“Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents, present documents? Is this happening in the delivery room? How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is citizen of the United States under your rule?” Jackson said.
Demonstrators rally outside the US Supreme Court, before justices hear oral arguments on Wednesday.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
When other justices brought up the mechanics of determining one’s qualification for birthright citizenship, they usually were doing so in the context of teasing out how those mechanics would have played out in the 19th century, as the justices tried to decipher what the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind.
Barrett said resolving disputes over who would be entitled to citizenship under Trump’s order could be “messy in some applications.”
She specifically asked about “foundlings,” children of unknown parentage or who were abandoned by their parents. Sauer pointed to federal law to suggest they would be covered.
“Yeah, yeah, yeah,” Barrett shot back. “But what about the Constitution?”
“How would you adjudicate these cases?” Barrett continued. “You’re not going to know at the time of birth for some people whether they have the intent to stay or not, including US citizens, by the way.”
Sauer said that practically it wouldn’t be an issue because Trump’s order turns on an “objectively verifiable thing, which is immigration status.”
Every court to consider the legality of Trump’s order has rejected it. In the case at hand, a US District Court in New Hampshire barred enforcement of Trump’s order against any babies who would be impacted by the policy in a class-action lawsuit. Trump appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court before an appeals court had a chance to review the matter.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision in the case by the end of June.
CNN’s Austin Culpepper contributed to this report.