ANN E. MARIMOW, ABBIE VanSICKLE2026年7月2日In the consequential Supreme Court term that ended Tuesday, the justices rejected some of President Donald Trump’s marquee policies that were personally important to the president.在周二结束的这个影响深远的最高法院开庭期中，大法官们否决了特朗普总统力推的若干重大政策，这些政策对总统本人具有重要意义。Chief Justice John Roberts and two justices appointed by Trump joined with the three liberals to invalidate the president’s sweeping tariffs. The court struck down Trump’s order to end the guarantee of birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born babies of immigrants lacking permanent legal status and temporary visitors. And the justices prevented him from immediately firing a leader of the influential Federal Reserve.首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和特朗普任命的两位大法官与三位自由派大法官联手，裁定总统的全面关税政策无效。最高法院还推翻了特朗普终止非法移民及临时访客在美国所生婴儿的出生公民权保障的行政令。大法官们还阻止他立即解雇美联储一位颇具影响力的负责人。But even as the justices chose key moments to push back on Trump, the court’s conservative supermajority delivered generational, long-sought wins, including by expanding executive power, as the court that Trump remade in his first term continued a project of pushing the law to the right.但即使大法官们在关键时刻选择对特朗普说“不”，随着特朗普在第一任期内重塑的最高法院继续推动美国法律右转，占绝对多数的保守派仍然取得了一系列酝酿多年的重大胜利，其中包括扩大行政权力。The court endorsed Republican-backed efforts to lift limits on campaign financing, expanded presidential reach over immigration policy and the federal bureaucracy, and dealt a major blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark civil rights law.最高法院支持共和党推动的放宽竞选资金限制的努力，扩大了总统在移民政策和联邦官僚体系中的权力范围，并对一部具有里程碑意义的民权法律——1965年的《投票权法》给予了沉重打击。“The headline might be ‘Court checks Trump,’ but the through line is a concentration of power towards the presidency, towards the court itself and away from Congress, federal agencies and voters,” said Deepak Gupta, a plaintiffs’ lawyer who regularly argues before the court. Gupta said the decisions could “fundamentally change the relationship between citizens and their government.”经常在最高法院出庭的原告律师迪帕克·古普塔表示：“新闻头条或许写的是‘最高法制衡特朗普’，但贯穿始终的主线却是：权力正在向总统、向最高法院自身集中，而远离国会、联邦机构和选民。”他说，这些裁决可能会“从根本上改变公民与政府之间的关系”。‘Running the Table’“横扫全场”In the final days of a contentious term that began in October, the conservative majority overruled a 90-year-old precedent, clearing the way for Trump and future presidents to fire independent regulators over policy disagreements despite laws passed by Congress intended to insulate agencies from political pressure.在这个始于去年10月、充满争议的开庭期的最后几天，保守派多数推翻了一项已有90年历史的先例，为特朗普以及未来的总统扫清了道路，使他们能够仅仅因为政策分歧就解雇独立监管机构的负责人，即便国会立法旨在将相关机构与政治压力隔绝。That 6-3 ruling upends the structure of the federal government and weakens Congress’ ability to restrain the president. It also raises questions about whether such agencies will continue to operate independently of whomever occupies the White House to regulate major parts of American life, from labor disputes to broadcast television to workplace discrimination.这一6比3的裁决颠覆了联邦政府的权力架构，削弱了国会制衡总统的能力。它还引发质疑：从劳资纠纷到广播电视再到职场歧视，那些监管美国社会重要领域的机构能否继续保持独立于白宫主人之外的运作方式。There was one exception: The court shielded the independence of the Federal Reserve by blocking Trump from immediately firing one of its governors, Lisa Cook, over unproven allegations of mortgage fraud.不过也有一个例外：最高法院阻止了特朗普立即解雇联邦储备委员会委员丽萨·库克，保护了联储的独立性——对库克的指控涉及抵押贷款欺诈，但尚未经证实。The majority also fulfilled another long-held goal of the chief justice, who joined the bench in 2005, when it agreed in April to significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act. The ruling cleared the way for a Republican push throughout the South to redraw congressional maps, carving up voters and dismantling majority-Black districts in Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee.保守派多数还实现了首席大法官（他于2005年就任）长期以来的另一个夙愿：今年4月，法院同意大幅削弱《投票权法》。这一裁决为共和党在整个南部地区重划国会选区扫清了道路，使其能够拆分选民群体，并瓦解阿拉巴马州、路易斯安那州和田纳西州以黑人占多数的选区。“Conservatives are running the table,” said Daniel Epps, a law professor who clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican nominee who was considered an unpredictable swing vote before his retirement in 2018.“保守派正在横扫全场，”曾在共和党提名的大法官安东尼·肯尼迪手下担任书记员的法学教授丹尼尔·埃普斯说。在2018年退休前，安东尼·肯尼迪长期被视为立场难以预测的摇摆票。In public appearances, the justices often take pride in the percentage of cases in which they are unanimous. 在公开露面时，大法官们经常对达成一致裁决的案件比例引以为傲。“We’re able to talk to one another and listen to one another, and find common ground a surprising amount of the time,” Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s nominees, told David French of The New York Times in a recent interview. “You give us the 70 hardest cases in the country every year, where lower court judges have disagreed, and we’re able to reach unanimity that much. I think that’s a miracle, right?”“我们能够相互沟通、相互倾听，并在很多意想不到的情况下找到共识，”特朗普提名的大法官尼尔·戈萨奇近日在接受《纽约时报》的戴维·弗伦奇采访时说，“每年我们受理全国70件最棘手的案件——这些案件在下级法院已意见纷呈——而我们还能如此频繁地达成一致。我觉得这简直是个奇迹，对吧？”The justices did find unanimity 45% of the time, up 2 points from last term. They joined together, for instance, to say a Texas man could not be prosecuted for violating a law banning drug users from gun possession merely because he frequently used marijuana, and they agreed that a New Jersey anti-abortion group could bring a challenge in federal court to government efforts to seek its donor list.在这个开庭期，大法官们确实在45%的案件上达成了一致，比上一开庭期提高了2个百分点。例如，他们一致认为，不能仅仅因为一名得克萨斯州男子经常吸食大麻就以违反禁止毒品使用者持有枪支的法律起诉他；他们还一致同意，新泽西州一个反堕胎组织可以在联邦法院挑战政府索取其捐赠者名单的做法。There were also examples of ideologically diverse lineups during the term.本开庭期也出现了意识形态构成多元的裁决组合。In a 5-4 vote Monday, Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in supporting Mississippi’s grace period for late-arriving mail-in ballots, rejecting a push by the Trump administration to invalidate a state law.在周一的一项5比4裁决中，罗伯茨和艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官携手三位自由派大法官，支持密西西比州对迟到的邮寄选票设定宽限期的规定，驳回了特朗普政府推翻该州法律的主张。Barrett also joined Roberts’ majority opinion this week to uphold birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds. Trump appointed Barrett to the court in his first term, and her tendency to occasionally rule against his priorities has drawn harsh criticism from the president’s allies.巴雷特本周还加入了罗伯茨的多数意见，基于宪法理由支持出生公民权。特朗普在其第一任期内任命了巴雷特，而她偶尔作出不符合其优先事项的裁决已招致总统盟友的严厉批评。Gorsuch, who has a libertarian streak, also aligned at times with his colleagues on the left, more often than he has in the past. He sided with them in a case about the rights of criminal defendants who have entered into plea bargains with prosecutors and joined a dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, in a case thwarting people’s ability to sue the manufacturer of the weedkiller Roundup in state courts.在本开庭期，具有自由主义倾向的戈萨奇也比以往更频繁地与自由派同僚站在一起。他在一宗涉及与检方达成认罪协议的刑事被告权利案件中支持自由派，并加入了自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊的反对意见，该案涉及人们是否能够在州法院起诉农达除草剂的制造商。But even so, a conservative bloc routinely controlled the outcome in cases large and small, with the center of the bench shifting considerably to the right and delivering 13 ideologically divided decisions in which all six justices nominated by Republican presidents were in the majority and all three Democratic nominees were in dissent. That was nearly a quarter of all rulings in which nine justices participated, compared with 11% in the term that ended in June 2025.尽管如此，保守派大法官阵营仍然经常在大大小小的案件中主导着裁决走向——法院中轴线大幅右移，本开庭期共作出了13项意识形态分歧鲜明的裁决，六位由共和党总统提名的大法官全部站在多数一方，三位民主党提名的大法官全部持反对意见。这占全部九位大法官参与裁决案件的近四分之一，而在2025年6月落幕的上一开庭期中，这一比例仅为11%。Those rulings included decisions that strip deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Haiti and Syria and allow the administration to turn away asylum seekers fleeing persecution at the U.S.-Mexico border.这些裁决包括：取消数十万来自海地和叙利亚移民的驱逐保护，以及允许政府拒绝那些因遭受迫害而逃往美墨边境寻求庇护者入境。The majority continued a trend in recent years of limiting transgender rights after the justices’ expansion in 2020 of workplace protections for gay and transgender workers. The justices upheld state laws from West Virginia and Idaho prohibiting transgender females from playing on women’s and girls’ sports teams.在2020年扩大同性恋和跨性别员工职场保护之后，最高法院的多数派近年来限制跨性别者权利的趋势仍在继续。大法官们维持了西弗吉尼亚州和爱达荷州的州法律，禁止跨性别女性参加女子体育比赛。Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Gorsuch, all conservatives, voted in the majority far more often than last term. In contrast, Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, who has at times found compromise with her conservative colleagues, found herself more frequently in dissent this term, according to an analysis prepared for the Times by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin at Washington University in St. Louis and Michael Nelson at Penn State.据圣路易斯华盛顿大学的李·爱泼斯坦和安德鲁·马丁以及宾夕法尼亚州立大学的迈克尔·尼尔森为《纽约时报》整理的分析报告显示，在这个开庭起，保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托和戈萨奇站在多数一方的频率远高于上一开庭期。自由派大法官埃莱娜·卡根——她有时能与保守派同僚寻得妥协——本开庭期则更频繁地处于异议一方。“The six-person conservative juggernaut many predicted in 2020 was in full force this term,” Epstein, a political scientist and law professor, said in reference to the year Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, and solidified the supermajority.“许多人在2020年预测的六人保守派巨轮在本庭期全力运转，”政治学家兼法学教授李·爱泼斯坦说道。正是在那一年，巴雷特接替自由派大法官鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格，巩固了保守派的超级多数地位。The court’s rulings were more favorable to the administration as it defended the government broadly this year than during Trump’s first term or compared with all recent administrations since George W. Bush’s.与特朗普第一任期及自小布什以来历届政府相比，最高法院在本庭期总体来说更倾向于站在政府一方，表现出对本届政府的偏好。“The important losses for the administration in the extreme cases do not change the fact that the administration largely found a sympathetic court,” said Gregory Garre, a Supreme Court practitioner who served as solicitor general during the Bush administration.曾在布什政府期间担任副总检察长的最高法院出庭律师格雷戈里·加雷说：“政府在极端案件中的重大失利并不能改变这样一个事实，即本届政府总体上面对的是一个相当同情它的法院。”While the court is unquestionably dominated by the six justices nominated by Republican presidents, it is not being run by those on the far right. Across all cases, the justices most frequently in the majority have been the same for the last six terms: Roberts, Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.虽然最高法院无疑由共和党总统提名的六位大法官主导，但它并非由极右翼掌控。在所有案件中，过去六个庭期最常处于多数方的大法官始终是同一批人：罗伯茨、巴雷特和布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官。Ann E. Marimow是时报驻华盛顿的最高法院记者。Abbie VanSickle是时报最高法院记者。她是一名律师，在调查报道方面拥有丰富的经验。翻译：杜然点击查看本文英文版。