美国上诉法院维持禁令 阻止特朗普限制邮寄选票行政令Appeals Court Blocks Trump Executive Order Restricting Mail-In Voting
美国第一巡回上诉法院于7月25日以2比1的投票结果，拒绝了司法部暂停执行此前下级法院禁令的请求，该禁令阻止了特朗普总统限制邮寄选票的行政令在23个民主党领导的州实施。司法部此前辩称，由于联邦机构尚未敲定实施该行政令的具体政策，各州提起的诉讼为时过早。然而，上诉法院驳回了这一论点，指出各州面临紧迫的选举截止日期，必须立即做出应对，以确保官员和公众理解管理即将到来的9月和11月中期选举的规则。司法部此前曾警告称，如果上诉法院不做出有利于其的裁决，政府可能会被迫向美国最高法院寻求紧急救济。这一裁决维持了联邦地区法院法官英迪拉·塔尔瓦尼于6月25日作出的决定，该决定认为特朗普限制邮寄选票行政令的关键部分违宪。俄亥俄州国会议员吉姆·乔丹对此次裁决表示批评，认为其允许非公民进入选民登记册，从而损害了选举的公正性。
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday rejected a request by the Trump administration to lift a lower-court injunction, leaving in place a block on President Donald Trump's executive order tightening mail-in voting rules in 23 Democratic-led states. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court rejected the Justice Department's argument that the lawsuit was premature because federal agencies had not yet finalized policies to implement the order. The court ruled that the plaintiff states face rapidly approaching deadlines and have no practical choice but to respond now to ensure officials and the public understand the rules governing the upcoming September and November midterm elections. The Justice Department previously warned that if it did not prevail in the appeals court, it might seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling upholds a June 25 decision by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who concluded key parts of the order were unconstitutional, while Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan criticized the decision, arguing it impedes election integrity.
01上诉法院维持对特朗普邮寄选票行政令的禁令Appeals Court Upholds Injunction on Trump's Mail-In Voting Order
总部位于波士顿的美国第一巡回上诉法院于周六做出裁决，以2比1的投票结果拒绝了司法部的请求，维持了此前阻止特朗普总统限制邮寄选票行政令在23个民主党领导的州实施的禁令。该裁决使得联邦官员无法在即将到来的11月中期选举前全面推进特朗普对邮寄选票制度的改革，维持了此前波士顿联邦地区法院法官做出的该行政令部分内容违法的裁定。
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday issued a 2-1 ruling rejecting the Justice Department's request, leaving in place a preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of President Donald Trump's executive order tightening mail-in voting rules in 23 Democratic-led states. The decision prevents federal officials from fully moving forward with the administration's overhaul of mail-in voting procedures ahead of the upcoming November midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress.
上诉法院的这一决定意味着，在政府就该案提出上诉期间，下级法院于6月25日颁布的禁令将继续有效。司法部此前曾要求上诉法院暂停执行该禁令，以便联邦机构能够继续推进该行政令的实施。然而，上诉法院的多数法官最终选择站在原告州一边，拒绝了联邦政府在诉讼期间恢复执行该行政令的要求。
By denying the Department of Justice's request to pause the lower-court injunction during the ongoing appeal process, the appeals court kept in place the June 25 ruling that declared key provisions of the president's directive unlawful. The administration had sought to lift the block to allow federal agencies to proceed with implementing the executive order, but the appellate majority sided with the plaintiff states, leaving the restriction on the executive order active.
02司法部“诉讼过早”辩词遭法院驳回Court Rejects DOJ Argument That Lawsuit Was Premature
在向第一巡回上诉法院提交的诉讼请求中，司法部辩称，由于联邦政府机构尚未最终确定实施特朗普总统指令的具体行动与政策，因此各州针对该行政令提起的任何法律诉讼都为时过早。政府试图以此论点说服法庭暂停执行下级法院的禁令，以便联邦机构能够继续推进政策制定工作。然而，上诉法院的多数法官驳回了这一逻辑，认为等待政策完全敲定是不切实际的。
In its request to the appeals court, the Department of Justice argued that because federal government agencies had not yet finalized the specific actions and policies needed to implement President Trump's directive, any lawsuit challenging the executive order was premature. The administration sought to use this argument to pause the lower-court injunction, allowing federal agencies to continue their work. However, the appellate majority rejected this reasoning, finding that waiting for final policies was impractical under the circumstances.
上诉法院在裁决中指出，该行政令已经设定了一系列迅速临近的截止日期，要求各州必须与联邦官员进行协调并遵守新的投票程序。法院强调，各州在应对这些新规的同时，还必须确保其选举官员和公众能够理解即将到来的9月和11月中期选举规则。因此，原告州别无选择，只能立即对该行政令做出应对，而不能等到联邦政策最终确定之后再采取行动。
The appeals court explained in its ruling that the executive order lays out a clear set of rapidly approaching deadlines by which states must coordinate with federal officials and comply with new voting procedures. The judges emphasized that the plaintiff states must manage these changes while simultaneously ensuring that local officials and the general public understand the rules governing the upcoming September and November elections. Consequently, the court concluded that the states have no practical choice but to respond to the order immediately.
特朗普政府与司法及选举机构关系图Trump Administration, DOJ, and Election Entities Network
展示特朗普、司法部、选举协助委员会以及地方民主党官员之间的权力与对抗关系。
Maps the power dynamics and conflicts between Donald Trump, the DOJ, the EAC, and local Democratic officials.
03诉讼背景与下级法院的先前裁决Litigation Background and Prior Lower Court Rulings
此次法律争端的焦点在于特朗普总统于3月份颁布的行政令。联邦地区法院法官英迪拉·塔尔瓦尼于6月25日作出了有利于原告州的裁决，颁布禁令阻止了该行政令关键部分的实施。塔尔瓦尼法官在裁决中认定，该行政令中旨在收紧邮寄选票规则的核心条款属于违宪。这一裁决为23个由民主党领导的州提供了暂时的法律保护，使它们免受新规的影响。
The legal battle centers on President Donald Trump's March executive order. On June 25, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction blocking several key provisions of the order, concluding that those parts of the Republican president's directive were unconstitutional. This lower-court decision provided temporary relief to the 23 Democratic-led plaintiff states, shielding them from the administration's efforts to tighten mail-in voting rules ahead of the elections.
在塔尔瓦尼法官作出裁决之前，该行政令还曾在其他法庭上面临挑战。华盛顿特区的一名联邦法官此前曾审理过一起由民主党人发起的类似诉讼，该诉讼同样试图基于类似的理由阻止特朗普总统的行政令，但该法官最终驳回了民主党人的这一相关诉求。这一先前的司法分歧为第一巡回上诉法院如今面临的法律交锋奠定了背景。
Prior to Judge Talwani's ruling, the administration's executive order had faced other legal challenges. In Washington, D.C., a federal judge rejected a related effort by Democrats who had sought to block President Trump's order on similar grounds. This previous rejection in the nation's capital set a contrasting legal backdrop to the subsequent proceedings in Boston, where the district court ultimately chose to halt the implementation of the administration's voting policy.
特朗普政府近期选举与司法部干预脉络Trump Administration's Recent Election and DOJ Interventions
展示特朗普政府如何通过人事任命、司法调查和解散选举委员会，逐步加强对选举与司法系统的控制。
Illustrates how the Trump administration has systematically tightened control over election and justice systems through appointments, investigations, and dismissals.
总统特朗普宣布计划正式提名现任代理司法部长托德·布兰奇永久领导司法部，以结束该职位的临时状态并巩固对司法部的控制。
President Trump announced plans to formally nominate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to permanently lead the Justice Department, solidifying control over the agency.
民主党加州州长加文·纽森公开指责总统特朗普指示司法部对他及其妻子展开政治动机的调查，滥用大陪审团程序。
Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom accused President Trump of directing the DOJ to conduct a politically motivated investigation into him and his wife.
在中期选举临近之际，特朗普总统通过电子邮件免除了双党派机构美国选举协助委员会（EAC）所有剩余成员的职务，引发对联邦干预选举的担忧。
Just months before the midterm elections, President Trump dismissed the remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) via email.
特朗普在白宫发表黄金时段电视讲话，声称美国选举系统存在“灾难性缺陷”，并公布了新解密的选举安全文件，敦促国会通过新法案。
President Trump delivered a primetime address claiming "catastrophic flaws" in the U.S. election system and released declassified election security documents.
04各方反应与走向最高法院的可能性Reactions and Potential Escalation to the Supreme Court
此次裁决公布后，各方做出了不同的反应。俄亥俄州国会议员吉姆·乔丹对第一巡回上诉法院的裁决表示了强烈批评。他指出，该裁决允许非公民进入选民登记册，从而损害了选举的公正性，并且这一决定违背了常识。与此相对，原告州则支持法院维持禁令的决定，以确保即将到来的选举规则不被干扰。
Following the appellate court's decision, reactions emerged from various political figures. Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan criticized the ruling during a discussion, arguing that it impedes election integrity by allowing non-citizens on voter rolls and goes against common sense. In contrast, the plaintiff states welcomed the decision to keep the preliminary injunction in place, which prevents the administration from enforcing the mail-in voting restrictions as the elections approach.
面对这一司法挫折，特朗普政府可能会采取进一步的法律行动。司法部在此前向法院提交的材料中已经明确警告，如果上诉法院不做出有利于政府的裁决，联邦政府可能会被迫向美国最高法院寻求紧急救济。随着11月中期选举的临近，这一法律争端最终可能会在最高法院迎来最终裁决。
Faced with this legal setback, the Trump administration may escalate the dispute to the nation's highest court. The Department of Justice previously warned the appellate court that if it did not prevail in the 1st Circuit, the government might be forced to seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. With the November midterm elections rapidly approaching, this legal battle over mail-in voting rules appears headed for a potential high-court intervention.
