美国最高法院裁定特朗普限制出生公民权行政令违法US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

在“特朗普诉巴巴拉案”中，美国最高法院对总统特朗普旨在结束出生公民权的行政命令做出了最终裁决。这项裁决重申了延续百余年的宪法共识，即几乎所有在美国领土上出生的人都自动拥有美国公民身份。最高法院以6比3的投票结果判定，特朗普限制该项权利的政策属于违法行为。这一裁决直接否定了特朗普政府试图通过行政手段阻止无证移民及部分临时访客子女获得公民权的尝试。

In the case Trump v. Barbara, the US Supreme Court issued its final ruling on President Trump's executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship. The decision reaffirmed a century-old consensus that virtually all individuals born in the United States are automatic citizens. In a 6-3 vote, the court found Trump's policy to be unlawful, rejecting the administration's attempt to restrict citizenship rights through executive action.

此案的核心争议在于特朗普签署的行政命令，他曾辩称，由于无证移民和部分临时访客的子女不属于美国管辖范围，因此不符合获得出生公民权的资格。然而，最高法院最终驳回了这一主张。该裁决不仅维护了在美国领土上出生儿童的自动公民权，也成为最高法院在特朗普第二任期内否决的第二项标志性政策，此前最高法院已于今年2月否决了其多项关税政策。

The legal dispute centered on Trump's executive directive, which argued that children of undocumented immigrants and certain temporary visitors were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and were therefore ineligible for birthright citizenship. By striking down the order, the Supreme Court upheld the citizenship rights of children born on US soil regardless of their parents' status. This ruling represents the second major initiative of Trump's second term to be invalidated by the court, following the rejection of his tariff policies in February.

在多数派意见书中，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨追溯了出生公民权的历史，将其源头关联至建国初期。他指出，正如250多年前殖民地居民要求享有“英国人的权利”一样，国会在南北战争后修改了宪法，以明确规定在美领土上出生的任何孩子都自动获得公民身份。罗伯茨在判词中写道，无论过去还是现在，公民身份都是“拥有权利的权利”，即自由参与政治共同体的权利，第十四修正案的制定者将这一承诺延伸到了这片土地上的每一个自由出生的人，而最高法院如今坚守了这一承诺。

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts traced the history of birthright citizenship back to the nation's founding. He noted that just as colonists demanded "the rights of Englishmen" more than 250 years ago, Congress amended the Constitution after the Civil War to specify automatic citizenship for any child born on US soil. Roberts wrote that citizenship, both then and now, represents "the right to have rights" and to freely participate in the political community. He emphasized that the framers of the 14th Amendment extended this promise to "every free-born person in this land," concluding that the court is keeping that promise today.

尽管大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺也投下了支持票，但他选择单独撰写支持意见。卡瓦诺并未完全附议罗伯茨基于宪法的多数派意见，而是基于联邦法律做出了裁决。他认为，特朗普的行政命令违反了20世纪50年代颁布的联邦立法，该立法已明确授予在美国出生的儿童自动公民身份。通过这种方式，多数派的六位大法官从宪法修正案和联邦成文法两个维度，共同否定了该行政令的合法性。

While Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in striking down the executive order, he wrote a separate concurring opinion based on statutory grounds rather than constitutional interpretation. Kavanaugh did not sign on to Roberts' constitutional analysis, arguing instead that the presidential directive violates federal legislation enacted in the 1950s that grants automatic citizenship to children born in the United States. Through these combined constitutional and statutory arguments, the six-justice majority successfully invalidated the administration's policy.

在最高法院的少数派意见中，大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托和尼尔·戈萨奇对多数派的裁决表示反对。托马斯撰写了长达91页的反对意见书，作为此次异议的主导文件。他在异议书中支持了特朗普政府的主张，认为宪法第十四修正案的适用范围非常有限，其最初仅适用于前奴隶及其后代，而不应延伸至其他群体。戈萨奇大法官也加入了托马斯的这份异议书。

In the minority, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court's ruling. Justice Thomas authored the lead dissenting opinion, a comprehensive 91-page document in which he aligned with Trump's argument regarding the original intent of the Constitution. Thomas asserted that the 14th Amendment was only intended to apply to former slaves and their descendants, rather than granting universal birthright citizenship. Justice Gorsuch joined Thomas's dissenting opinion.

此外，托马斯在异议书中还提出警告，称他无法确定多数派在当天做出的裁决意见是否能够经受住时间的考验。与此同时，阿利托大法官则选择单独撰写了一份反对意见书，与托马斯和戈萨奇共同构成了反对该裁决的阵营。这三位保守派大法官的异议，展现了最高法院内部在宪法第十四修正案历史原意及适用范围问题上的深刻分歧。

Furthermore, Thomas included a warning in his dissent, writing that he was not sure today's majority opinion would stand the test of time. Meanwhile, Justice Alito wrote a separate dissenting opinion to express his disagreement with the majority. Together, the dissents from these three conservative justices highlighted the deep ideological divide within the court over the historical interpretation and modern application of the 14th Amendment.

此次最高法院的裁决对特朗普总统的移民议程构成了重大打击。该行政命令是特朗普重返白宫第一天签署的，旨在作为其全面打击移民政策的核心举措。通过限制无证移民和临时访客子女的出生公民权，特朗普政府曾试图推翻延续百余年的宪法惯例，但最高法院的判决彻底否定了这一尝试，并获得了民权组织的欢迎。

The Supreme Court's ruling represents a major setback for President Trump's broader immigration agenda. Trump had signed the executive directive on his very first day back in the White House, intending for it to serve as a cornerstone of his administration's sweeping crackdown on immigration. By attempting to deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, the administration sought to dismantle a century-old constitutional consensus, an effort that has now been decisively blocked by the nation's highest court and welcomed by civil rights organizations.

这也是最高法院在特朗普第二任期内否决的第二项标志性倡议。在此之前，最高法院已于今年2月份做出裁决，否决了特朗普的多项关税政策。这两次关键性的司法判决表明，尽管最高法院拥有保守派多数席位，但特朗普在第二任期内通过行政命令推行其核心关税与移民政策的尝试，依然在最高司法机关遭遇了重大的法律阻碍。

This decision also marks the second signature initiative of Trump's second term to be struck down by the Supreme Court. It follows a landmark ruling in February that invalidated many of the president's key tariff policies. Together, these two judicial defeats demonstrate that despite the court's conservative majority, the administration's attempts to implement its core trade and immigration agendas through unilateral executive action face significant legal barriers under federal law and the Constitution.