ABBIE VanSICKLE2026年7月1日The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, reaffirming the long-held principle that the Constitution guarantees that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens.周二，最高法院推翻了特朗普总统限制“出生公民权”的行政令，重申了宪法保障几乎所有在美国领土出生的人均享有公民身份这一长期确立的原则。The ruling, which was 6 to 3 to strike down the president’s executive order, was a severe blow to a policy pursued by Mr. Trump for more than a decade, to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans.这项以六比三作出的裁决否决了总统的行政令，对特朗普十多年来一直推动的政策构成了重大打击。该政策旨在阻止非法移民和临时外国居民所生子女自动取得美国公民。Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Children born in the United States to undocumented parents or to parents temporarily in the country, he wrote, are citizens at birth.首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨代表多数方撰写了意见书，他解释说，特朗普的行政令违反了宪法第十四修正案所确立的权利。他还写道，在美国出生的非法移民或暂时居留美国的外国人的子女在出生之时即为美国公民。“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”“公民身份，无论在过去还是今天，都是拥有权利的权利——意味着能够自由参与我们的政治共同体，”罗伯茨大法官写道。“第十四修正案的制定者将这一承诺扩展至‘这片土地上的每一个自由出生的人’。”He added: “We keep that promise today.”他补充道：“我们今天依然坚守这一承诺。”The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.与首席大法官罗伯茨共同支持出生公民权的是最高法院的三名自由派大法官，以及两名保守派同僚——艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官和布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官。卡瓦诺大法官在意见书中表示，他推翻这项行政令的依据是联邦法律，而非宪法。Mr. Trump followed the case closely, even attending part of the oral arguments in person in April. He was the first sitting president to attend an argument.特朗普一直密切关注此案，甚至在4月亲自出席了部分口头辩论。他是首位亲自出席最高法院庭审辩论的现任总统。In a social media post after the ruling, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He then asserted that he could “easily make it up in Congress through Legislation,” and that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.” He urged Congress to start immediately to “work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship.”裁决公布后，特朗普在社交媒体上发文称，最高法院的决定“对我们的国家来说太糟糕了”。随后他表示，自己可以“轻而易举地通过国会立法来弥补这一问题”，而且“根本不需要冗长而繁琐的宪法修正案”。他敦促国会立即开始“着手终结这种代价高昂且对我国不公平的出生公民权制度”。Those assertions appeared at odds with the court’s ruling, given that five justices — a majority of the court — ruled that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. Any measure, whether proposed as a bill or a constitutional amendment, would face long-shot odds.然而，这些说法似乎与法院裁决相矛盾，因为五位大法官——已构成法院多数——认定宪法保障出生公民权。无论是提交立法议案还是推动宪法修正案，都几乎没有成功的可能。The key text of the 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”第十四修正案的核心条文写道：“所有在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖者，均为合众国及其居住州之公民。”That language, dating to the 1860s, has long been understood to grant birthright citizenship.这段文字可追溯至19世纪60年代，长期以来被理解为赋予出生公民权的法律依据。Chief Justice Roberts traced the underpinnings of the concept back to England, writing that colonists who crossed the Atlantic Ocean brought with them the “common law of citizenship” by birthright.首席大法官罗伯茨将这一理念的渊源追溯至英国，写道，横渡大西洋来到北美的殖民者把“普通法中的出生公民原则”—并带到了这里。The idea that citizenship is automatically given to babies born on U.S. soil took on “particular importance” in “a nation of immigrants,” the chief justice wrote, nodding to the “tens of thousands of émigrés from the Old World — Scotch-Irish, French, German, Welsh, and many more” who arrived on American shores, “some of whom hoped to stay only a short time, others of whom hoped never to leave.”这位首席大法官写道，在“一个移民国家”，出生即取得公民身份这一理念具有“特殊的重要性”。他提到了“成千上万来自旧大陆的移民——苏格兰-爱尔兰人、法国人、德国人、威尔士人以及更多其他人——来到美国海岸”，其中“有些人只希望短暂停留，另一些人则希望永不离开”。The court had already confirmed the principle of birthright citizenship in the landmark 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Roberts wrote. In that case, the court held that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens, because he was born on U.S. soil.罗伯茨大法官写道，最高法院在1898年具有里程碑意义的“合众国诉黄金德案”中确认了出生公民权原则。在那起案件中，法院裁定，在旧金山出生、父母均为中国公民的黄金德依据第十四修正案，因出生于美国领土而享有公民身份。Three of the court’s conservatives — Justice Clarence Thomas, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — dissented. Neither Justice Alito nor Justice Gorsuch was on the bench on Tuesday, the court’s final opinion day of the term.最高法的三位保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托和尼尔·戈萨奇持异议。周二是最高法院本开庭期的最后一个判决日，阿利托和戈萨奇大法官当天均未出席。In his 91-page dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch, Justice Thomas said that the 14th Amendment was intended to enshrine citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants, a repudiation of the court’s infamous Dred Scott case that had denied citizenship to Black people.托马斯大法官撰写了长达91页的异议意见，戈萨奇大法官联署。托马斯认为，第十四修正案的立法本意是确立前奴隶及其后代的公民身份，以推翻最高法院声名狼藉的“德雷德·斯科特案”——该判决曾否认黑人享有公民身份。“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans,” Justice Thomas wrote. “They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority.”托马斯大法官写道：“黑人有权获得公民身份，因为他们是美国人。他们没有其他祖国，不效忠于任何外国政权，也不受任何其他权威管辖。”Justice Thomas added that “the same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors,” who were “attached to their home country,” lacked “similar bonds to this country,” and “would not be called upon in time of war.”托马斯大法官补充道，“外国临时访客的子女则不然”，他们“依附于自己的祖国”，缺乏“与这个国家的类似纽带”，并且“在战时不会被征召”。Justice Alito called the decision “a serious mistake,” writing that the court’s view of the Constitution “confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of ‘birth tourists,’” people he characterized as “women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home.”阿利托大法官称该裁决是“一个严重错误”，他写道，法院对宪法的解读“将公民身份赋予几乎所有碰巧在这个国家出生的人，包括‘生育游客’的子女”——他将后者描述为“那些专门来美国生孩子，然后迅速回国的女性”。The legal battle over birthright citizenship began on the first day of Mr. Trump’s second term, when he announced an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”围绕出生公民权的法律斗争始于特朗普第二任期的第一天，当时他签署了名为《保护美国公民身份的意义和价值》的行政令。In the order, he declared that citizenship would no longer be automatically granted to babies born on U.S. soil. In particular, children born to immigrants who entered the country illegally would no longer be citizens, nor would those born to parents here on a lawful but temporary basis, such as those on student, work or tourist visas.在该命令中，他宣布，在美国领土上出生的婴儿将不再自动获得美国国籍。具体而言，非法进入美国的移民所生的孩子将不再是美国公民，持学生签证、工作签证或旅游签证等合法但临时身份在美居留者所生的孩子也同样如此。The president’s order faced immediate legal challenges, as civil rights organizations, immigrant advocacy groups and expectant parents sued, successfully winning in court to block the order while lawsuits unfolded.该行政令甫一发布，民权组织、移民权益倡导团体及待产父母相继提起诉讼，并成功申请到法院禁令，在诉讼进行期间阻止行政令生效。It never went into effect, and there were few signs the administration had been preparing the dramatic overhaul of the citizenship system that would have been necessary were it allowed.该命令从未生效，而且几乎没有迹象表明，政府此前一直在为公民身份制度的重大改革做准备——而如果该命令得以实施，这种改革将是必要的。In addition to the Constitution, the challengers also said the order violated federal statutes from 1940 and 1952, when Congress codified the language of the citizenship clause into law.除了宪法之外，挑战者还指出，这项命令违反了1940年和1952年的联邦法律，因为国会当时已将公民身份条款的内容正式写入法律。The case heard by the Supreme Court was filed in New Hampshire on behalf of two babies subject to the president’s executive order, their parents and a pregnant woman.最高法院审理的这起案件是由两名受总统行政令影响的婴儿、他们的父母和一名孕妇在新罕布什尔州提起的。The Trump administration had asserted the president’s executive order “restores the original meaning of the citizenship clause.” Lawyers for the administration also said the order would affect only babies born after the order went into effect, trying to assuage concerns of millions of Americans who feared the order could cause them to lose their national identity.特朗普政府曾主张，总统的行政令“恢复了公民身份条款的原始含义”。政府的律师还表示，该命令只会影响生效后出生的婴儿，试图安抚数百万担忧自己可能因此失去国籍的美国人。Mr. Trump also drew attention to babies born through what he has called “birth tourism,” when wealthy foreigners visit the United States intending to give birth while in the country so their babies are citizens.特朗普还提请注意其所谓“生育旅游”现象——即富裕的外国人来到美国生下孩子，以便让孩子获得美国公民身份。After Tuesday’s ruling, Cecillia Wang, the national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the challengers, celebrated the ruling, writing that the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen.”周二裁决公布后，代表原告的美国公民自由联盟全国法律主任王德棻发表声明，对裁决表示欢迎。她写道，这项裁决“重申了美国的一项根本承诺——如果你出生在这里，你就是美国公民”。“A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat,” she wrote in an emailed statement, adding: “The Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong.”“总统不能通过行政令修改宪法，”她在邮件声明中写道，“宪法对出生公民权的保障依然坚如磐石。”Erica L. Green、Amy Qin和Aishvarya Kavi对本文有报道贡献。Abbie VanSickle为《纽约时报》报道美国最高法院新闻。她是一名律师，在调查报道领域拥有深厚背景。翻译：杜然点击查看本文英文版。获取更多RSS：https://feedx.net https://feedx.site