2026-05-20T06:00:16-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-major-cases-2026/
华盛顿讯——最高法院任期的最后几周即将到来，大法官们将在夏季休会前就一些最重要的案件作出裁决。
这家高等法院此前已经推翻了特朗普总统的全面关税政策，并削弱了《投票权法案》。但在7月开始前，大法官们还将就多项法律纠纷发布裁决意见，其中包括针对跨性别运动员的州法律诉讼、特朗普先生的出生公民权行政令，以及总统解雇某些独立机构成员的相关争议等。
以下是美国最高法院未来几周将作出裁决的案件详情：
出生公民权
特朗普诉芭芭拉案
在重返白宫的第一天，特朗普先生签署了一项行政令，旨在终止父母为非法入境或临时居留人员的新生儿的出生公民权。但该指令尚未生效，因为下级法院迅速阻止了它，认为其可能违宪。
本案的争议焦点在于特朗普先生的行政令是否符合宪法的公民权条款以及《移民与国籍法》，这两项法律规定了凡在美国出生并“受其管辖”者均可获得公民身份。
如果特朗普政府胜诉，最高法院维持该行政令，将推翻100多年来既定的共识，即第十四修正案的公民权条款赋予几乎所有在美国本土出生的人公民身份。
最高法院已于4月听取了口头辩论，多数大法官似乎倾向于宣布总统的指令无效。这一裁决将对特朗普先生的移民议程造成重大打击。
禁止跨性别运动员参加女子体育赛事的州法律
利特尔诉赫科克斯案 与 西弗吉尼亚州诉B.P.J.案
近年来，已有27个州颁布法律，禁止跨性别运动员参加女子体育队。其中西弗吉尼亚州和爱达荷州的相关限制措施的诉讼已提交至最高法院。
这两起案件是本届任期内最受关注的案件之一，裁决结果可能对超过半数州的类似禁令产生影响。最高法院面临的问题是，爱达荷州和西弗吉尼亚州的法律是否违反了宪法的平等保护条款或《第九章》。
爱达荷州是全美首个禁止跨性别女孩和女性参加与其性别认同相符的运动队的州。联邦上诉法院在2024年裁定，爱达荷州的法律可能违宪。但在最高法院同意审查该裁决后，此次诉讼的核心人物、跨性别女性林赛·赫科克斯表示，她的案件应被驳回，因为她已自愿同意放弃对该州的诉讼主张。
西弗吉尼亚州的法律受到了一名名叫贝基·佩珀-杰克逊的跨性别高中生的挑战。她从三年级开始进行社会性别过渡，并接受了青春期延迟药物和激素治疗。联邦上诉法院认定，西弗吉尼亚州的法律基于性别对佩珀-杰克逊进行了非法歧视。
最高法院已于1月听取了口头辩论，多数大法官似乎倾向于维持各州的禁令。
解雇某些独立机构成员
特朗普诉斯劳特案
特朗普先生在其第二任期内寻求扩大行政权力范围，包括无理由解雇多成员董事会和委员会成员。被总统解雇的官员中包括丽贝卡·斯劳特，她曾担任联邦贸易委员会委员。
斯劳特被无理由解雇，这与1914年的一项法律相冲突，该法律限制总统仅在效率低下、玩忽职守或在职渎职的情况下才能解雇联邦贸易委员会委员。她提起诉讼，联邦上诉法院表示，在诉讼进行期间，斯劳特可以继续在联邦贸易委员会任职。
但在9月，最高法院允许特朗普解雇斯劳特，并同意就贸易委员会成员的解雇保护是否违反分权原则作出裁决。本案的另一个争议点是是否推翻1935年“汉弗莱遗产执行人诉美国案”的判决。
在这项已有90年历史的裁决中，最高法院表示，国会可以限制总统随意解雇多成员机构官员的权力。
如果特朗普胜诉，最高法院推翻联邦贸易委员会成员的解雇保护条款，将赋予总统更多对某些独立机构的权力，而这些机构原本是国会为使其免受政治压力而设立的。
最高法院已于12月审理了斯劳特的案件，多数大法官似乎倾向于支持总统。
解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克案
特朗普诉库克案
特朗普先生试图解雇的联邦官员中包括美联储理事会成员丽莎·库克。在美联储112年的历史上，此前没有任何总统试图解雇美联储理事。
联邦住房金融局局长比尔·普尔蒂指控，库克在2021年前总统乔·拜登提名她进入美联储理事会之前，在两处房产相关的抵押贷款文件中存在虚假陈述。特朗普先生援引这些指控，称他有“充分理由”解雇库克，因为其涉嫌“在金融事务中存在欺骗性且可能是犯罪的行为”。
库克否认有不当行为，且未被指控犯罪。她提起诉讼要求复职，辩称特朗普先生违反了《联邦储备法》。该法赋予总统“因事由”解雇美联储理事的权力，但并未对“事由”作出定义。
下级法院和最高法院均允许库克继续在美联储理事会任职，最高法院正在权衡特朗普是否可以在其法律诉讼进行期间解雇她。大法官们并未审议美联储理事解雇保护措施的合法性。
尽管最高法院的保守派多数似乎倾向于允许总统随意解雇某些独立机构的官员，但最高法院已表明其对美联储的看法有所不同。2025年5月，最高法院将央行称为“结构独特的准私人实体，遵循了第一和第二银行的独特历史传统”。
大法官们已于1月听取了口头辩论，似乎倾向于让库克继续留任。
迟到的邮寄选票与选举日的定义
沃森诉共和党全国委员会案
距离11月中期选举仅数月之遥，初选季也已拉开帷幕，最高法院将裁决各州是否可以计算在选举日前盖邮戳但在选举日后送达的邮寄选票。
14个州和哥伦比亚特区接受迟到的邮寄选票，29个州和哥伦比亚特区至少允许部分军事和海外选票在选举日后送达。但在此次提交至最高法院的案件中，共和党全国委员会辩称，这些所谓的“宽限期”与联邦法规冲突，后者将选举日定为11月第一个星期一之后的星期二。
此案涉及的密西西比州法律规定，只要在选举日前盖邮戳，选举日后五天内收到的选票都将被计入有效票。
联邦上诉法院驳回了密西西比州的五天宽限期规定，最高法院已于3月听取了口头辩论。
特朗普先生经常抨击邮寄投票，毫无根据地声称这会引发选举欺诈。他的政府在本案中支持共和党全国委员会，并敦促最高法院废除密西西比州的宽限期规定。
叙利亚人和海地人的临时驱逐保护
马伦诉多案 与 特朗普诉米奥特案
作为特朗普先生移民打击行动的一部分，国土安全部已着手取消对十多个国家公民的临时法律保护。最高法院目前正在审议终止针对超过35.6万名叙利亚和海地移民的“临时保护身份”计划的相关诉求。
最高法院在审理案件期间，维持了对叙利亚和海地临时保护身份持有者的保护措施。
叙利亚和海地移民提起的诉讼的关键问题之一是，联邦法院是否甚至可以审查国土安全部长终止本国临时保护身份的决定。特朗普政府广泛解释《临时保护身份法》，禁止对指定、终止或延长救济的决定以及作出该决定的步骤进行司法审查。
但在另一方，原告律师辩称，法院可以审查作出延长或终止驱逐救济决定的程序，以及国土安全部长是否适用了联邦法律规定的标准。
最高法院已于4月听取了口头辩论，裁决结果可能对特朗普先生已着手终止临时保护身份的13个国家的超过100万移民产生影响。
候选人与政党委员会之间协调支出的联邦限制
全国共和党参议员委员会诉联邦选举委员会案
在一场重大的竞选资金纠纷中，最高法院正在审议政治委员会与候选人协调支出的联邦限额是否违反第一修正案。
此案由时任参议院候选人JD·万斯、时任俄亥俄州众议员史蒂夫·查博特以及两个共和党委员会于2022年提起，他们辩称，支出限额阻碍了政党委员会与其候选人传达统一政治信息的能力。
联邦上诉法院维持了支出上限，援引了2001年最高法院的一项裁决，该裁决保留了早期版本的限额规定。但自该裁决以来的二十多年里，最高法院的组成已发生了重大变化。
特朗普政府时期的联邦选举委员会敦促最高法院废除支出限制，辩称这些限制限制了政党与其候选人协调参与政治演讲的权利。由于共和党原告也反对支出限额，最高法院任命了一名外部律师为限额规定辩护。
最高法院已于12月听取了口头辩论。
大麻使用者持有枪支
美国诉赫马尼案
根据联邦法律，“非法使用或成瘾任何受控物质”的人持有枪支属于犯罪行为。但在最高法院2022年扩大枪支权利的里程碑式裁决之后，多项针对长期枪支限制的法律挑战正在法院审理。
此案涉及德克萨斯州男子阿里·赫马尼，他因作为非法吸毒者持有枪支而被指控犯有重罪。检方依据的是他偶尔吸食大麻的行为，但赫马尼的律师辩称，该法规对他的适用违反了宪法第二修正案。
联邦上诉法院裁定赫马尼胜诉，认为由于政府未能证明他持有枪支时处于醉酒状态，该法规对他的适用违反了第二修正案。
特朗普政府为该限制措施辩护，并敦促最高法院维持该法律。但另一方面，美国全国步枪协会等枪支权利组织与美国公民自由联盟一同支持赫马尼。
最高法院已于3月听取了口头辩论。
The major cases the Supreme Court will decide in the coming weeks
2026-05-20T06:00:16-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-major-cases-2026/
Washington — The final weeks of the Supreme Court’s term are fast approaching, and the justices are poised to hand down decisions in some of its most significant cases before they go their separate ways for the summer.
The high court has already struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs and weakened the Voting Rights Act. But before the start of July, the justices will also issue opinions in legal fights over state laws targeting transgender athletes, Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order and the president’s efforts to fire members of certain independent agencies, among others.
Here is a look at the cases the Supreme Court will decide in the coming weeks:
Birthright citizenship
Trump v. Barbara
On his first day back in the White House, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship for babies born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. But the directive has not taken effect, since it was swiftly blocked by lower courts that found it likely unconstitutional.
At issue in the case is whether Mr. Trump’s executive order complies with the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act, which confer citizenship on those born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
If the Trump administration prevails and the Supreme Court upholds the executive order, it would upend more than 100 years of settled understanding that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly all people born on U.S. soil.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in April, and a majority of the justices appeared poised to invalidate the president’s directive. Such a ruling would be a significant blow to Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda.
State laws banning transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports
Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Twenty-seven states have enacted laws in recent years that prohibit transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams. Challenges to restrictions in two of those states, West Virginia and Idaho, are before the court.
The cases are among the most closely watched of the term, and a decision could have implications for similar bans in more than half of the states. The question before the court is whether the laws from West Virginia and Idaho violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.
Idaho was the first state in the nation to forbid transgender girls and women from playing on the team that aligns with their gender identity. A federal appeals court ruled in 2024 that Idaho’s law is likely unconstitutional. But after the Supreme Court agreed to review that decision, the transgender woman at the center of the challenge, Lindsay Hecox, said her case should be dismissed because she voluntarily agreed to drop her claims against the state.
West Virginia’s law was challenged by a transgender high school student named Becky Pepper-Jackson, who began socially transitioning when she was in third grade and has taken puberty-delaying medication and hormone therapy. A federal appeals court found West Virginia’s law unlawfully discriminated against Pepper-Jackson on the basis of sex.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in January and appeared likely to uphold the state bans.
Removal of members of certain independent agencies
Trump v. Slaughter
Mr. Trump has sought to expand the bounds of executive power across his second term, including by firing members of multimember boards and commissions without cause. Among those removed by the president was Rebecca Slaughter, who served as a member of the Federal Trade Commission.
Slaughter was fired without cause, which clashed with a 1914 law that limited the president’s ability to remove an FTC commissioner to instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. She sued, and a federal appeals court said Slaughter could continue in her job at the FTC while her lawsuit proceeded.
But in September, the Supreme Court let Mr. Trump fire Slaughter and agreed to decide whether the removal protections for members of the trade commission violate the separation of powers. Also at issue in the case is whether to overrule the 1935 decision in the case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
In that 90-year-old ruling, the Supreme Court said Congress could restrict the president’s ability to fire officials from multi-member agencies at-will.
If Mr. Trump prevails and the Supreme Court strikes down the removal protections for members of the FTC, it would give the president more power over certain independent agencies that Congress had sought to insulate from political pressure.
The Supreme Court considered Slaughter’s case in December and appeared likely to side with the president.
The firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook
Trump v. Cook
Among the federal officials that Mr. Trump attempted to fire was Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. No president before Mr. Trump had moved to fire a Fed governor in the central bank’s 112-year history.
Bill Pulte, who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, had alleged that Cook made misrepresentations on mortgage filings related to two properties before she was nominated to the Fed Board by former President Joe Biden in 2021. Citing those allegations, Mr. Trump said he had “sufficient cause” to remove Cook because of alleged “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter.”
Cook has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. She sued to get her job back, arguing that Mr. Trump violated the Federal Reserve Act, which gives the president the authority to remove a Fed governor “for cause,” though the term is not defined.
Lower courts and the Supreme Court have allowed Cook to continue serving on the Fed Board, and the high court is weighing whether Mr. Trump can fire her while her legal challenge moves forward. The justices are not considering the legality of the removal protections for Fed governors.
While the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears poised to let the president oust officials at certain independent agencies at will, the high court has indicated that it views the Fed differently. In May 2025, the Supreme Court singled out the central bank as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks.”
The justices heard arguments in January and appeared ready to let Cook keep her job.
Late-arriving mail ballots and the meaning of Election Day
Watson v. Republican National Committee
Just months ahead of the November midterm elections, and with primary season underway, the Supreme Court is set to decide whether states can count mail ballots that are postmarked by, but arrive after, Election Day.
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia accept late-arriving mail ballots, and 29 states and D.C. allow at least some military and overseas ballots to be received after Election Day. But in the case before the Supreme Court, the Republican National Committee argued that these so-called grace periods conflict with federal statutes that set Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Under the Mississippi law that is at issue in the case, ballots received up to five days after the election are counted so long as they were postmarked by Election Day.
A federal appeals court struck down Mississippi’s five-day deadline, and the Supreme Court heard arguments in March.
Mr. Trump frequently rails against mail voting, claiming without evidence that it invites election fraud. His administration backed the Republican National Committee in the case and urged the Supreme Court to invalidate Mississippi’s grace period.
Temporary deportation protections for Syrians and Haitians
Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot
As part of Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown, the Department of Homeland Security has moved to rescind temporary legal protections for people from more than a dozen countries. The Supreme Court is currently weighing efforts to end the program known as Temporary Protected Status for more than 356,000 immigrants from Syria and Haiti.
The high court has kept the protections for Syrian and Haitian TPS holders in place while it weighs the cases.
A key question in the disputes brought by Syrian and Haitian immigrants is whether federal courts can even review the Homeland Security secretary’s decisions to end TPS for their home countries. The Trump administration has interpreted the TPS statute broadly to bar judicial review of the decision to designate, terminate or extend the relief, as well as the steps taken to reach that determination.
But on the other side, lawyers for the plaintiffs have argued that courts can scrutinize the process taken to reach the decision to extend or terminate the deportation relief, and whether the Homeland Security secretary applied the criteria laid out in federal law.
The justices heard arguments in April, and a decision could have implications for more than 1 million immigrants from the 13 countries that Mr. Trump has moved to end TPS for.
Federal limits on coordinated spending between candidates and party committees
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
In a major campaign finance dispute, the Supreme Court is weighing whether federal limits on the amount of money a political committee can spend in coordination with candidates violate the First Amendment.
The case was brought in 2022 by then-Senate candidate JD Vance, then-Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio and two Republican committees, who argued that the limits hinder party committees’ ability to communicate a unified political message with their candidates.
A federal appeals court upheld the caps, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that had left an earlier version of the limits in place. But in the more than two decades since that decision, the composition of the high court has changed considerably.
The Federal Election Commission under the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the spending restrictions, arguing that they limited parties’ right to engage in political speech in coordination with their candidates. Because the Republican plaintiffs also opposed the caps, the Supreme Court appointed an outside lawyer to argue in defense of the limits.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in December.
Gun possession by marijuana users
United States v. Hemani
Under federal law, it is a crime for a person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to have firearms. But in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision expanding gun rights, a number of legal challenges to longstanding firearms restrictions have been moving through the courts.
This case involves a Texas man, Ali Hemani, who was charged with a felony for having a gun as an unlawful drug user. The prosecution was based on his occasional use of marijuana, but Hemani’s lawyers argued that the statute is unconstitutional when used to charge him.
A federal appeals court ruled in favor of Hemani, finding that because the government did not show that he was intoxicated when he had the gun, the statute violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.
The Trump administration defended the restriction and urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law. But on the other side, gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union in backing Hemani.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in March.