Name: 一個巨大的決定最高法院限制法官阻止特朗普的能力 ('A huge decision': Supreme Court limits ability of judges to stop Trump)
Uploaded: 2025-06-27T15:43:20.000Z
Duration: 11 min 1 s

好吧，帕梅拉，這是我們知道的。

This is a big win for President Trump because he has been railing against the so-called nationwide injunctions.

這對特朗普總統來說是一個重大勝利，因為他一直在抨擊所謂的全國性禁令。

This is the power of a single judge to block an executive order for the entire country.

這就是一個法官阻止整個國家行政命令的權力。

And this case came up as a result of multiple challenges to his effort to limit birthright citizenship through an executive order.

他通過行政命令限制出生公民權的努力受到了多方質疑，是以出現了這起案件。

Now, here it appears that the justices are agreeing with Trump and limiting this power that judges have to block a policy for the entire country.

現在，大法官們似乎同意了特朗普的觀點，限制了法官阻止全國性政策的權力。

Now, on another issue, it does not appear that they have weighed in on whether Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship is or is not constitutional.

現在，在另一個問題上，他們似乎還沒有對特朗普限制出生公民權的努力是否符合憲法作出評價。

Instead, they are limiting the power of these judges to block policies for the entire country, which will likely allow Trump to proceed with this effort to limit birthright citizenship while the larger constitutional questions about whether he can do that are being litigated.

相反，他們限制了這些法官阻止整個國家政策的權力，這很可能會讓特朗普繼續限制出生公民權，而有關他能否這樣做的更大憲法問題正在訴訟中。

Now, just to explain to you the significance of this, one of President Trump's lawyers told me this case, this is the ballgame for President Trump's agenda because we know more than any modern president, he loves to govern through executive action.

特朗普總統的一位律師告訴我，這起案件是特朗普總統議程的關鍵，因為我們比任何一位現代總統都更清楚，他喜歡通過行政行動來治理國家。

And the majority of these have been blocked by lower court judges.

而其中大部分都遭到了下級法院法官的阻撓。

So he has not been able to follow through with things he wanted to do on the budget, on mass firings, on immigration.

是以，在預算、大規模解僱、移民等問題上，他一直未能如願以償。

So now that the justices are limiting the power that judges have to block those policies, this is going to allow them to implement these policies more quickly, though it is possible that some of these might come before the justices in two or three years with constitutional concerns.

是以，現在大法官限制了法官阻止這些政策的權力，這將使他們能夠更快地實施這些政策，儘管其中一些政策有可能在兩三年後因憲法問題而提交給大法官。

But right now, the question was really whether a single judge anywhere in the country could block an executive action for the entire nation.

但現在的問題是，全國任何地方的一名法官能否阻止整個國家的行政行動。

And here, in a historic opinion, the justices are limiting that power.

在這裡，大法官們以歷史性的觀點限制了這種權力。

And again, President Trump's lawyers have told me this is the case that they are watching.

特朗普總統的律師再次告訴我，這是他們正在關注的案件。

This means everything for the president's ability to govern through executive actions.

這對總統通過行政行動進行治理的能力意味著一切。

Now, I will say, these nationwide injunctions, this is a bipartisan concern.

現在，我要說的是，這些全國範圍的禁令是兩黨共同關注的問題。

These have plagued every modern president.

這些問題一直困擾著每一位現代總統。

But because President Trump does so much through executive action, he has faced the greatest number of these nationwide injunctions.

但是，由於特朗普總統通過行政行動做了很多事情，是以他面臨的這類全國性禁令也最多。

So he and his Republican allies here on Capitol Hill, they have been railing against these.

是以，他和他在國會山的共和黨盟友一直在抨擊這些。

And now the conservative supermajority siding with President Trump and his Republican allies to limit this power from judges, a huge decision.

現在，保守派的超級多數支持特朗普總統及其共和黨盟友限制法官的這一權力，這是一個巨大的決定。

So just to be precise, Paula, this was a six to three decision, six conservative justices, three liberal justices.

所以準確地說，寶拉，這是一個六比三的決定，六位保守派大法官，三位自由派大法官。

And it was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

它的作者是艾米-科尼-巴雷特法官。

Now, some of her conservative colleagues did also opine concurrences here.

現在，她的一些保守派同事也在此發表了贊同意見。

We're still getting through the whole opinion.

So these are just the top lines, but this is enormous.

是以，這些只是最基本的數據，但這是一個巨大的數字。

This is yet another huge win for President Trump from this conservative supermajority.

這是保守派超級多數黨為特朗普總統贏得的又一巨大勝利。

Now, we have been reporting since Trump took office in January that his lawyers were telling me, even though a lot of their policies were getting bogged down in the lower courts, that anything they could get in front of this high court, that they would ultimately win.

自特朗普一月份上任以來，我們一直在報道，他的律師告訴我，儘管他們的很多政策在下級法院受阻，但只要他們能在高等法院獲得支持，他們最終就會獲勝。

And this decision right here, this is proof that this long game they've been playing for the past six or seven months, they've won and they've won big time.

這個決定證明，在過去的六七個月裡，他們一直在玩這個漫長的遊戲，他們贏了，而且是大獲全勝。

We'll get back to you as you continue reading this opinion and we'll see what the final decision is with a lot more specific details.

當您繼續閱讀本意見時，我們會給您回覆，我們會看到最終決定的更多具體細節。

He's over at the White House for us where they're watching very, very closely, probably more closely than any place else in the country right now, what the US Supreme Court is doing.

他正在白宮為我們報道，他們正在非常、非常密切地關注著美國最高法院的所作所為，可能比國內任何地方都要密切。

There's no question about that, Wolf, and exactly what Paula was saying there.

毫無疑問，沃爾夫，這也正是寶拉所說的。

This is about something much broader than birthright citizenship.

這涉及到比出生公民權更廣泛的問題。

Yes, that specific issue was the venue to get this to the Supreme Court.

是的，這個具體問題是將這一案件提交給最高法院的原因。

That will likely be decided on a different day, but it is just the idea of this power of the executive branch that really is at issue here.

這可能會在另一天做出決定，但這裡真正有爭議的只是行政部門的這種權力理念。

It's hard to think of another administration, and I've covered the last four or five presidents, I guess, that has used their executive authority as much, and it's been challenged by lower courts.

我想，在過去的四、五屆總統中，我很難想象還有哪屆政府會如此頻繁地使用行政權力，而且還受到下級法院的質疑。

Now the Supreme Court is weighing in and it is giving the executive branch a considerable power.

現在，最高法院開始介入，並賦予行政部門相當大的權力。

One White House official, and they're reading through this opinion in the White House Counsel's Office, just as everyone else is, but is pointing to this line.

一位白宮官員和其他人一樣，正在白宮法律顧問辦公室通讀這份意見書，但他指出了這一行字。

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion, it says this, when a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power to.

艾米-科尼-巴雷特大法官的意見是這樣說的：當法院斷定行政部門的行為不合法時，答案是法院不能越權。

So basically, if the executive branch has exceeded its authority, a judge cannot also weigh in, a singular judge.

是以，從根本上說，如果行政部門越權，法官也不能插手，法官是單一的。

So the White House is viewing this ruling as very consequential that could affect a variety of policies, a variety of cases that exist, really across the spectrum of what this administration has tried to do.

是以，白宮認為這一裁決非常重要，可能會影響到各種政策、各種案件，甚至影響到本屆政府所做的一切努力。

So there's no doubt, even though birthright citizenship was something the president long talked about, he campaigned on, this is bigger than that in a sense, because it is broader and it's answering a question, at least for the moment, about the power of the executive branch that many lower courts have raised into question.

是以，毫無疑問，儘管與生俱來的公民權是總統長期以來一直在談論的，也是他競選時一直在強調的，但從某種意義上說，這件事比這更重要，因為它涉及的範圍更廣，而且至少在目前，它回答了一個關於行政部門權力的問題，許多下級法院已經對此提出了質疑。

Yeah, and obviously this impacts the power of the executive branch, but it impacts every single American as well.

是的，這顯然會影響到行政部門的權力，但也會影響到每一個美國人。

And I think that's a big focus here, because I remember, Ali, during the oral arguments, one of the concerns brought up was, if judges can't do the nationwide injunction, then you have a patchwork, where the plaintiffs are under the injunction, but others in America wouldn't be under that.

我認為這是這裡的一個重點，因為我記得，阿里在口頭辯論中提出的一個問題是，如果法官不能在全國範圍內發佈禁令，那麼就會出現拼湊的情況，原告受到禁令的保護，但美國的其他人卻不會受到禁令的保護。

And so that's really the question here, how does it address that issue?

是以，這才是真正的問題所在，它是如何解決這個問題的？

Yeah, and in this case, in the birthright citizenship case, there was something like six different lawsuits filed in six different district courts.

是的，在這個案件中，在出生公民權案件中，在六個不同的地區法院提起了六個不同的訴訟。

This case is an amalgamation of three of them that went up to the Supreme Court.

此案是其中三個案件的合併案，已提交最高法院審理。

So now they're gonna be back in the district courts.

That's where most of the action happens in the federal judiciary.

聯邦司法機構的大部分行動都發生在這裡。

People who were born to parents who are not citizens could have different status in different districts at this moment.

父母都不是公民的人在不同地區可能會有不同的身份。

I do wanna read to the point that Paula and Jeff were making.

我確實想讀一讀寶拉和傑夫的觀點。

This is a good sense of why this is so important.

這就很好地說明了為什麼這一點如此重要。

It's on page five, written by Amy Coney Barrett.

在第五頁，作者是艾米-科尼-巴雷特。

She's writing for the Sixth Justice Conservative Majority, an expansion of presidential powers, a reduction in the powers of courts.

她為第六大法官保守多數派撰稿，擴大總統權力，削弱法院權力。

By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached a state of affairs where almost every major presidential action was immediately frozen by a federal district court.

拜登政府任期結束時，幾乎每項重大總統行動都會立即被聯邦地區法院凍結。

As the number of universal injunctions has increased, so too has the importance of this issue.

隨著普遍禁令數量的增加，這一問題的重要性也在增加。

And I think that's a nice encapsulation of why this is such a big win for the Trump administration.

我認為這很好地概括了為什麼這是特朗普政府的一大勝利。

And not just Donald John Trump, the person, but the office of the president.

不僅僅是唐納德-約翰-特朗普這個人，還有總統這個職位。

Whoever comes next is going to get the benefit of this ruling too.

無論下一任是誰，都將從這一裁決中獲益。

And it's going to make it much harder, not impossible, but much harder for a single district court judge in Maryland or Wyoming or where have you, to say, I'm blocking the president's action nationwide.

這將使馬里蘭州或懷俄明州或其他地方的地方法院法官更難，不是不可能，而是更難說 "我要在全國範圍內阻止總統的行動"。

It's going to be much harder to do that now.

現在要做到這一點就難上加難了。

And isn't there a strategic victory, obviously, on behalf of the administration, back to those oral arguments that you were talking about, Pamela, by focusing this on the nationwide injunction issue and not the underlying birthright citizenship, which clearly does, I know every scholar says, it's not constitutional at its core, but does live on to fight another day and perhaps have some enforcement or enactment in the meantime.

帕梅拉，把焦點放在全國範圍內的禁令問題上，而不是潛在的出生公民權問題上，這顯然是一種戰略上的勝利，我知道每個學者都說，它的核心並不符合憲法，但確實可以繼續戰鬥下去，也許在此期間會有一些執行或頒佈。

And this is part, I've just started to sort of dig into the dissent, but this is part of what the three liberal justices say in dissent.

這是部分內容，我剛剛開始研究反對意見，但這是三位自由派大法官在反對意見中的部分內容。

We're going to end up with a system where if you're born in New Jersey, you might have different status than if you're born in the exact same circumstances across the river in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.

如果你出生在新澤西州，你的身份可能會與你在河對岸賓夕法尼亞州費城東區同樣情況下出生的身份不同。

And so that's one of the problems here, the practical problems.

And again, important to stress, the dispute over birthright citizenship itself and Donald Trump's effort to not eliminate it, but narrow it, that's for another day.

需要再次強調的是，關於與生俱來的公民權本身的爭議，以及唐納德-特朗普（Donald Trump）不是要取消而是要縮小其範圍的努力，這是後話。

That I think will make its way back to the Supreme Court, but not this term.

我認為最高法院會重新考慮這個問題，但不是在這一屆。

And I think, excuse me, I think that's actually one of the critical points.

我認為，不好意思，我認為這實際上是關鍵點之一。

I think it's premature to declare victory for the administration in this.

我認為，現在就宣佈政府在這件事上取得勝利還為時過早。

What this opinion is, is a full employment license for litigators.

這份意見就是訴訟律師的全職工作許可證。

Now, all of these cases go back to the lower courts.

現在，所有這些案件都回到了下級法院。

The Supreme Court appears to have said, you can bring these cases as class actions.

最高法院似乎已經表示，你們可以將這些案件作為集體訴訟提出。

You don't have to proceed individually, but class actions are a complicated question as well.

您不一定要單獨訴訟，但集體訴訟也是一個複雜的問題。

隨著時間的推移，訴訟會越來越多。

Now that it's consistent with the long game strategy, it was absolutely a strategic decision by the administration to bring it in this posture.

現在，它與長期遊戲戰略相一致，以這種姿態出現絕對是政府的一項戰略決策。

They've prevailed sort of initially in getting themselves more time to pursue this.

他們在一開始就取得了勝利，為自己爭取到了更多的時間來處理這件事。

But it's not at all clear that this policy will succeed or ever actually be implemented.

但是，這項政策能否成功或能否真正實施，還一點都不清楚。

It now depends what lower courts across the country do.

現在就看全國各地的下級法院怎麼做了。

This is coming back to the Supreme Court, but first, more litigation over the coming year.

這個問題將回到最高法院，但首先，在未來的一年裡會有更多的訴訟。

And Deborah Pearlstead is a constitutional law professor at Princeton University.

德博拉-珀爾斯泰德（Deborah Pearlstead）是普林斯頓大學的憲法學教授。