最高法院所谓"影子案卷"的崛起

这是你尽情玩耍的一天。

It's your day to play.

这是你充分利用的早晨。

It's your morning to make the most of.

这是你爱的方式。

It's your way to love.

这是你需要考虑的气候。

It's your climate to consider.

这是你'我该看什么？'的答案。这是你该存的钱。

It's your answer to what should I watch? It's your money to save.

这是你逐行分析的歌曲。

It's your song to analyze line by line.

这是你寻找片刻宁静的10种方法。这是你要理解的世界。

It's your 10 ways to find a little calm. It's your world to understand.

《纽约时报》。了解更多信息，请访问 nytimes.com/yourworld。

The New York Times. Find out more at nytimes.com/yourworld.

大家好，我是瑞秋。我想花点时间跟大家聊聊我们《每日播报》正在做的一个有趣的小项目。这是我们稍后会为《纽约时报》订阅用户分享的一期特别节目，想法很简单：我们想与《纽约时报》那些才华横溢、令人惊叹的同事们聊聊，了解他们是谁，以及他们是如何工作的。

Hey there. It's Rachel. I wanna take a quick second to tell you about a fun little project that we're working on here at the daily. It's something that we'll share later on as a bonus episode for New York Times subscribers, and the idea is really simple. We wanna talk to our fascinating, incredible colleagues here at the New York Times about who they are and how they do their jobs.

作为其中的一部分，我们想收集你们——听众们的问题。我们将从游戏开始，比如Wordle、Connections、填字游戏，这些我们许多人每天都在玩的东西。我们会首先采访那些真正制作这些游戏的人。那么，你们有什么问题吗？

And as part of that, we want to take questions from you, our listeners. We're gonna start with games. Wordle, connections, the crossword, the things so many of us do every single day. We're starting with the actual people who actually make those games. So what are your questions?

你们想知道Wordle编辑对你们开局词的看法吗？想知道他们是如何构思新游戏的？或者想知道他们是否作弊？无论什么问题，你们都可以录制语音备忘录，发送邮件至dailysubscribers@nytimes.com。好了。

Do you wanna know what the Wordle editor thinks of your starting word? Do you wanna know how they come up with a new game? Do you wanna know if they ever cheat? Whatever your question is, you can send it to us by recording a voice memo and emailing it to dailysubscribers@nytimes.com. Okay.

节目开始。这里是《纽约时报》的《每日播报》，我是瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯。最高法院已为特朗普总统重塑美国政府扫清了道路，一再站在总统一边。但许多这些裁决缺乏一个根本的东西：解释这个国家最重要的法官们是如何做出决定的。今天，我的同事亚当·利普塔克将解释所谓的‘影子案卷’的兴起为何在全国各地的法院中引发了困惑，甚至在某些情况下是挫败感。

Here's the show. From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is The Daily. The Supreme Court has cleared the way for president Trump to remake American government, siding with the president over and over again. But many of these rulings lack something fundamental, an explanation for why the most important judges in the country came to their decision. Today, my colleague Adam Liptak explains why the rise of the so called shadow docket has sown confusion and, in some cases, frustration in courts around the country.

今天是9月15日，星期一。亚当，我想当大多数人想到最高法院时，他们会想象口头辩论，律师站在法官面前为他们的客户慷慨陈词，然后法官提问并撰写长篇的意见书和异议书。但你最近写道，最近出现了一系列案件，与我刚才描述的一切截然相反，这让人有点意外。我想你能不能先告诉我们最高法院最近发生了什么。

It's Monday, September 15. Adam, I think that when most people think of the Supreme Court, they imagine oral arguments and lawyers standing in front of justices making impassioned cases for their clients, and then the justices asking questions and writing these lengthy opinions and dissents. But you recently wrote about how there's been this flurry of cases recently that are kind of the exact opposite of everything I just described, which felt a little bit surprising. And I wondered if you could just start off by telling us what has been going on at the Supreme Court lately.

所以最高法院目前是在两条轨道上运作。其中一条轨道，瑞秋你提到的，是‘实质案卷’。在实质案卷上，人们请求最高法院审理案件。如果受理，就会进行口头辩论，法官们会开会、投票、审议、交换草案。

So the Supreme Court is operating these days on two tracks. One of those tracks, the one you refer to Rachel, is the merit stocket. On the merit stocket, people ask the Supreme Court to hear a case. If it does, it hears oral arguments, the justices meet, vote, deliberate, exchange drafts.

对。

Right.

每年大约60次，他们会发布冗长、复杂且经过深思熟虑的判决，

And about 60 times a year, they issue long involved considered decisions,

多数意见、异议意见常常长达100页或更多，这就是我们习惯的方式。与此同时，在另一条轨道上，存在着所谓的——人们对此使用不同的名称——影子日程表或紧急日程表，最近一些大法官开始称之为临时日程表。但简而言之，这个过程发生得非常快。各方在法院间竞速。

majority opinions, dissenting opinions often a 100 pages or more, and that's what we're used to. Now at the same time, on a separate track, there's the so called and people use different names for this. There's the shadow docket or the emergency docket, or lately some justices has been calling it the interim docket. But the short of it is is that this happens really fast. Parties race through the court.

他们只提交非常简短的案情摘要。没有口头辩论。在几周内，法院就会发布命令，以非常简洁的意见决定具有重大影响的事项，这些决定将持续一两年。这种不同的程序在特朗普第二任期内确实加速了，在其上任头七八个月里已经向法院提出了大约24次申请。这个数字比拜登政府四年内的申请次数还要多。

They submit only very thin briefs. There's no oral argument. And in a matter of weeks, the court issues orders deciding consequential matters in a way that will last a year or two in a very terse opinion. And this different procedure has really accelerated in the second Trump administration, which has run to the court maybe 24 times already in its first seven or eight months in office. That's a larger number than the Biden administration did over four years.

这比奥巴马和乔治·W·布什政府加起来的总数还要多得多。所以从数量级上看，我们已经处于一个不同的领域了。

It's a much larger number than the Obama and George w Bush administrations combined. So order of magnitude, we're in a different area.

哇。

Wow.

而且，这些申请的主题确实具有重大影响，法院已经为洛杉矶的移民拦截、取消NIH拨款、解雇数千名联邦工作人员、开除跨性别军人等开了绿灯。这基本上就是特朗普的全部议程。

And also, the subject matter of these applications is really consequential, and the court has greenlighted immigration stops in LA, canceling NIH grants, firing thousands of federal workers, discharging transgender service members. It's essentially the entire Trump agenda.

好的。这让我明白了为什么这周之前我似乎从未听说过的事情，突然感觉到处都能听到。那么你能解释一下这是什么吗？它是如何运作的？

Okay. That helps me understand why something that I don't think I've really heard about before this week, suddenly it feels as though I'm hearing about it everywhere. So can you just explain what is this? How does it work?

这类案件通常是这样产生的。一位总统，比如特朗普总统，发布一项行政命令，提出他议程中的某个大胆举措或计划，然后在法庭上受到挑战，一位联邦地方法院法官会说，我还不知道。我还没有机会审查所有证据。我还不知道这是否合法，但我会维持现状。而现状就是我们昨天还没有这个计划。

So here's how these cases typically arise. A president, say president Trump, issues an executive order setting out some bold piece of his agenda, some program that gets challenged in court, and a federal district court judge says, I don't know yet. I haven't had a chance to look at all the evidence. I don't know yet whether it's lawful or not, but I'm gonna maintain the status quo. And the status quo is we didn't have this program yesterday.

今天也别实施。在案件审理期间，我会暂时阻止这个计划，因为我认为它可能不合法。政府不喜欢这个答案，他们会去上诉法院说，你们能否暂停这个裁决，因为我们认为这个裁决是错误的？上诉法院很可能会说不。我们觉得没问题。

Let's not have it today either. And I'm gonna block this program for now while the case goes forward because I think it might not be lawful. The administration doesn't like that answer and they'll go to an appeals court and say, would you pause this ruling because we think this ruling is wrong? The appeals court might well say no. It's it's okay with us.

然后在几天内，案件就会提交到最高法院，最高法院被要求暂停阻止该倡议的裁决，不是对其最终合法性做出裁决，只是决定它是否可以实施。法院通常非常快速地处理，没有大法官之间的当面审议，有点像凭直觉行事。重要的是，发布的命令要么包含很少的推理，一两段话，要么经常根本没有推理。它只是说同意或不同意，而你并不知道原因。

Then within days, it goes to the supreme court, and the supreme court is asked to pause that ruling blocking the initiative, not to rule on its ultimate lawfulness, just to say whether it can be in place or not. And the court does that very fast generally without in person deliberation among the justices, kind of shooting from the hip. And importantly, issues orders that contain either very little reasoning, a paragraph or two, or quite often, no reasoning at all. It just says yay or nay, and you don't know why.

所以这听起来基本上是一个既能让决策加速，又不太透明解释决策原因的过程。为什么这个程序最近变得更流行了？

So it basically sounds like this is a process that allows decisions to both get expedited and also does not provide a lot of transparency into why they're made. Why has this procedure become more popular recently?

我的意思是，基本答案是两党的总统都越来越积极地试图通过行政命令做事。这就像黑夜过后是白天一样，自然而然地引发了法庭挑战和法庭裁决。

I mean, the basic answer is that presidents of both parties have been increasingly aggressive in trying to do stuff by executive order. And that gives rise kind of as night follows day to court challenges, to court rulings

嗯。

Mhmm.

关于倡议受阻，以及最高法院被要求在极短时间内介入。我应该说，这种加速、这种采纳在特朗普第二任期内爆发式增长，政府认为最高法院通常会同情他们，要么是因为六比三的共和党任命多数可能倾向于同情共和党总统，要么是因为法院总体上尊重任何党派总统的行政权力。但特朗普政府一再诉诸最高法院，因为他们知道很可能会成功，而事实也确实如此。

To initiatives being blocked, and the Supreme Court being asked to weigh in on really short notice. And I should say that this acceleration, this uptake has exploded in the second Trump administration, and the administration thought that the supreme court will generally be sympathetic to them either because it's a six three Republican appointee majority that might be inclined to be sympathetic to a Republican president or a court that in general defers to executive power of presidents of either party. But the Trump administration has gone to the supreme court over and over again in the knowledge that they are quite likely to succeed, and they have been.

所以听起来特朗普政府基本上已经发现这是快速执行其议程的有效策略。从今年迄今为止的许多裁决来看，他们已被证明是正确的。但我觉得很多听众可能会想，等等，最高法院大法官通常不是按党派路线投票吗？我们称他们为保守派或自由派大法官是有原因的。

So what it sounds like is that the Trump administration has basically figured out that this is an effective strategy to execute their agenda quickly. And they have been proven right in the many decisions that we've seen handed down so far this year. But I feel like a lot of people listening might be thinking like, wait a minute. Don't the Supreme Court justices typically vote along party lines? There's a reason we call them conservatives or liberal justices.

对吧？

Right?

最高法院的审判中存在政治因素。但在所谓的实质案件审理中，他们大约有40%的时间是一致的。严格按六比三路线分裂的案件数量只是少数。不寻常的联盟、奇怪的排列和奇怪的组合在实质案件中并不少见。

There is an element of politics in Supreme Court judging. But in argued cases on the so called merit stocket, they're unanimous like 40% of the time. The number of cases that break strictly along the six three line is like a large handful. An unusual alliances and weird permutations and strange bedfellows are not uncommon on the merit stock.

所以，在正常业务过程中，你确实看到保守派和自由派大法官之间有更多的一致。

So, like, in the normal course of business, you do see more agreement among the conservative and the liberal justices.

是的。但当我们最近只看过去两届政府的这些紧急申请时，情况就大不相同了。党派投票要多得多。基本上没有奇怪的组合。拜登政府的紧急申请以53%的微弱多数获胜。

Yes. But when we looked recently at just these emergency applications in the last two administrations, the picture is quite different. There's a lot more partisan voting. There are essentially no strange bedfellows. The Biden administration did win a slight majority of its emergency applications by 53.

特朗普政府的成功率要高得多，达到84%，但我认为这些并不是最有趣的数字。最有趣的是当你查看个别大法官的投票记录时，法院的右翼和左翼都完全符合类型。所以大法官阿利托可能是法院中最保守的成员，支持特朗普总统的比例为95%，支持拜登总统的比例为18%。这是77个百分点的差距。我这样计算是因为当你查看大法官索托马约尔和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（可能是法院中最自由派的两位成员）时，他们也有77个百分点的差距，但方向相反。

The Trump administration far more successful at 84% but I don't think those are the most interesting numbers. The most interesting numbers are when you look at the voting records of individual justices, and the right side of the court and the left side of the court are both completely playing to type. So justice Alito may well be the most conservative member of the court voted for president Trump 95% of the time and president Biden 18% of the time. That is a 77 percentage point gap. I did that math because when you look at justices Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, probably the two most liberal members of the court, they also have a 77 percentage point gap but going in the other direction.

现在这并不完全是一回事。它们不是相同的案件，涉及不同的法律问题，但在某种意义上又不是。在某种意义上，这是相同的根本法律问题：你给予总统多少区别对待，以及如何计算保留一个项目是否对某一方造成损害？

Now this is not completely apples to apples. They're not the same cases. They're different legal issues, but in a sense not. In a sense, it's the same fundamental legal issue. How much difference do you give the president and how do you calculate whether leaving a program in place causes harm to one side or the other?

这是所有这些紧急申请中的基本问题。我刚才提到的法官们得出了非常不同的结论，如果不是基于，至少也与他们认为自己喜欢或不喜欢的总统相关联。

That's the basic question in all of these emergency applications And the justices I just mentioned come to very different conclusions, if not based on, at least correlated to the president who they might be thought to like or dislike.

为什么你认为我们在这些紧急决定中看到如此多的党派分歧？

Why do you think we see so much more partisanship in these emergency decisions?

我认为法官们自己会说，他们在短时间内无法做到最好，而对案情摘要、辩论和审议的长期考虑有助于他们理解问题，找到共识。

I think the justices themselves will say they don't do their best work on short notice, that long consideration of briefs and arguments and deliberations helps them understand the issues, find consensus.

找到共同点。

Find common ground.

找到共同点。找到也许更狭窄但能获得更大多数支持的裁决方式。当你以这种速度运作时，法律以外的因素可能会发挥更大作用。

Find common ground. Find ways to rule maybe more narrowly, but with a greater majority. When you're operating at this speed, things other than than the law may take a greater role.

嗯。

Mhmm.

现在大法官们会说，这就是为什么我们不写任何东西，因为我们不想被束缚，因为我们还没有完全想清楚，因为我们被要求快速给出答案，我们会推迟到另一天再给出更深思熟虑的答案。他们说，如果你现在写点什么，你就会被锁定，以后更难得出不同的结论。但这种程序的兴起，紧急命令的兴起，对最高法院的工作产生了真正的后果，并且正在法律体系本身中造成一些真正的混乱。

Now the justices will say, well, that's why we don't write anything because we don't want to be locked in because we haven't thought it through completely because we're being required to give a quick answer, and we will defer to another day the chance to give a more considered answer. And they say that if you were to write something now you'd be locked in and it would be harder for you to come to a different conclusion later. But the rise of this procedure, the rise of emergency orders has real consequences for the work of the Supreme Court, and it's causing some real chaos in the legal system itself.

我们马上回来。

We'll be right back.

我是海琳·库珀。我为《纽约时报》报道美国军方事务。所以我现在正坐在五角大楼外停车场我的车里。多年来，我在这栋大楼里有一个带办公桌的隔间，但特朗普政府已经把它收回了。所以现在有时我会来这里打电话，甚至用我的车当作一个临时办公桌来跟进我的报道。

I'm Helene Cooper. I cover the US military for The New York Times. So I'm sitting in my car in a parking lot outside the Pentagon. I had a cubicle with a desk inside the building for years, but the Trump administration has taken that away. So now sometimes come out here to make phone calls and even to follow my stories using my car as sort of a makeshift desk.

当权者总是给记者制造困难。这在过去没有阻止我们。现在也不会阻止我们。我将继续努力为你获取事实。我希望人们能确切理解我们要求这些美国军队的年轻男女们去做什么。

People in power have always made it difficult for journalists. It hasn't stopped us in the past. It's not gonna stop us now. I will keep working to get you the facts. I want people to understand exactly what we're asking these young men and women of the US military to do.

我在《纽约时报》的所有同事都致力于帮助您理解他们所报道的领域。所有这些工作都离不开订阅者。如果您想订阅，请访问 nytimes.com/subscribe。

All of my colleagues at The New York Times are dedicated to helping you understand the areas that they cover. None of this work happens without subscribers. If you'd like to subscribe, go to nytimes.com/subscribe.

亚当，我可以想象为什么这类决定可能有点令人困惑，因为这些命令，正如你所解释的，发布得非常非常快。而且最高法院没有非常详细地解释自己。所以我想知道你是否能举一个案例，让我们能实时看到那种缺乏解释是如何导致这种混乱的。

Adam, I can imagine why these kinds of decisions might be sort of confusing because these orders, as you explained, are issued really, really quickly. And the Supreme Court isn't explaining itself in great detail. So I wonder if you could give an example of a case that would allow us to see kind of how that lack of explanation leads to this confusion in real time.

嗯，就在最近，对洛杉矶地区的移民打击行动提出了一项挑战，如你所知，ICE特工在那里拦截、拘留了很多人，挑战者说这违反了第四修正案。他们说这是不加区别的种族定性，并说服了一名联邦初审法官发布了一项禁令，说我们不是说你们不能执行移民法，而是说你们不能仅仅依赖某些因素或这些因素的组合。这些因素包括某人的明显族裔——你不能仅仅因为某人看起来像西班牙裔就拦截他们，无论他们说的是西班牙语还是有口音的英语，无论他们是否在可能与无证移民有关的工作场所，或者人们从事的工作类型，比如园艺或建筑。嗯。而特朗普政府不喜欢这些限制。

Well, just recently, there was a challenge to the immigration crackdown in the Los Angeles area where as you know, ICE agents were stopping, detaining lots of people and challengers said that violated the fourth amendment. They said it was indiscriminate racial profiling and they persuaded a federal trial judge to issue an injunction that says we're not saying you can't enforce the immigration laws but saying you can't rely on certain factors alone or in combination. And those factors were someone's apparent ethnicity, you can't stop somebody just for looking Hispanic, whether they speak Spanish or accented English, whether they're at a work site that you might associate with unauthorized immigrants, or the type of work people do, say landscaping or construction. Mhmm. And the Trump administration didn't like those restrictions.

他们上诉到第九巡回法院。第九巡回法院不会暂停执行，于是他们又上诉到最高法院。最高法院作出了一项支持政府的裁决，但裁决书中完全没有提供任何推理过程。

They go to the appeals court, the ninth circuit. The ninth circuit won't pause it, and they go to the supreme court. And the supreme court rules for the administration in a decision that contains precisely zero reasoning.

就像什么都没说一样。他们对这个决定的任何部分都没有解释。

Like nothing. They didn't explain any part of the decision.

是的。我们不知道是因为挑战该命令的当事方没有诉讼资格，还是因为下级法院对移民执法策略的裁决过于宽泛，多数派没有给出任何理由。我们只知道最高法院命令至少在洛杉矶，ICE探员可以自由使用这些策略来抓捕人员，至少目前是这样。这适用于其他地方吗？我们根本不知道。

Yeah. We don't know whether it was because the parties challenging the order didn't have standing or whether the lower courts had ruled too broadly on immigration enforcement tactics, the majority gave no reasons. All we know is the Supreme Court orders that in Los Angeles, least, ICE agents are free to use these tactics to pick people up, at least for now. Does it apply elsewhere? We just don't know.

换句话说，我认为这正好解释了你之前谈到的困惑。例如，如果你是芝加哥的一名法官，正在处理完全相同类型的问题，即执法部门是否可以种族定性，你并不知道最高法院是如何做出决定的。因此，你不明白实际的先例是什么，你基本上只是在猜测你的决定是否恰当应用了最高法院的先例。

So in other words, and I think this gets the confusion that you were talking about earlier, if you are, for example, a judge in Chicago, and you're dealing with this exact same type of issue, whether or not law enforcement can racially profile, you don't know how the Supreme Court made its decision. So therefore, you don't understand what the actual precedent is, and you are just basically guessing about whether or not your decision is an appropriate application of the Supreme Court's precedent.

没错。我的意思是，这个案子特别的一点是，初审法官的裁决考虑了四个因素，并表示不能仅凭这些因素单独或组合来拦截某人。嗯，这引发了大量问题，下一位法官可能会想，那么其中两个或三个因素呢？或者明显的种族本身呢？一个普通的实体判决会系统地处理这些问题，并为诉讼当事人和法官提供关于法律是什么的真正指导。

Right. I mean, one thing in this case in particular was that the trial judge's ruling looked at four factors and said that you can't alone or in combination relying on only those factors stop somebody. Well, that raises a ton of questions and the next judge may wonder, well, what about two or three of those factors? Or what about apparent ethnicity by itself? An ordinary merits decision would methodically work through these issues and give litigants and judges real guidance about what the law is.

目前我们还没有看到下级法院处理洛杉矶移民拦截这一相当新近的裁决的真实案例。但在其他涉及联邦拨款、总统是否可以解雇独立机构领导人、是否可以将人员驱逐到南苏丹的案件中，这些案件确实让真正的法官感到困惑。实际上，尼尔·戈萨奇大法官上个月在一起涉及NIH拨款的案件中说，波士顿的一名联邦法官忽视了四月份在另一起案件中的四段命令的推理，他本应理解，尽管那不是关于案件实体的裁决，而且正如戈萨奇大法官所说，它只是概率性的，但它仍然具有总统的效力，而那位法官犯了严重的错误。这让波士顿联邦地区法院的威廉·杨法官真的——我不知道该怎么形容——他实际上在一次法庭听证会上长篇大论地道歉，说他并没有意识到自己无意违抗最高法院。

Now we haven't yet seen real life examples of lower courts grappling with the quite recent decision on immigration stops in LA. But in other cases involving federal grants and whether the president can fire the leaders of independent agencies, whether he can deport people to South Sudan, Those cases have caused actual judges to be actually confused. Justice Neil Gorsuch, actually, last month in a case involving NIH grants said that a federal judge in Boston had ignored the reasoning of a four paragraph order in April in a different case and that he should have understood that even though that wasn't a ruling on the merits and whether as justice Gorsuch said, it was only probabilistic, that it still had presidential force and that judge had done something gravely wrong. And that gave the judge, William Young of the Federal District Court in Boston, a real I don't know what to call it. He actually went into a court hearing and at length apologized and said he didn't realize he had not meant to defy the supreme court

哦，哇。

Oh, wow.

他是里根任命的法官。他说在他四十多年的法官生涯中，从未试图违抗上级法院的裁决。他遵循先例原则。

That he was a Reagan appointee. He said in his forty some years on the bench, he's never tried to defy a higher court ruling. He is committed to precedent.

他好像在说：我不是个麻烦制造者。

He's like, I'm not a troublemaker.

他只是不知道。而且这不是孤立事件。很多法官都在努力弄清楚影子案卷裁决究竟代表着什么样的先例。

He just didn't know. And this is not an isolated incident. Lots of judges are really struggling to figure out what kind of precedent a shadow docket ruling represents.

我们面临的问题是最高法院没有提供完整的判决意见书，只是在释放信号。

The problem we have is the Supreme Court isn't giving us opinions. It's giving us signals.

就在上周，弗吉尼亚州的联邦上诉法院法官还在公开法庭上辩论过这个问题。

Just last week, federal appeals court judges in Virginia debated this in open court.

最高法院的行动必然有其意义。他们不会无缘无故做这些事，我们不能直接无视它。

The supreme court's action must mean something. It doesn't do these things just for the kicks of it, and we can't just blow past it.

你能听到他们在权衡：一方面，这些命令相当晦涩难懂。

And you can hear them weighing how, on the one hand, these orders are quite opaque.

但我的意思是，我必须说，我理解最高法院是在告诉我们，我们是案件临时状态的最终决定者。我们在这里该如何绕过这一点？

But I I mean, I have to say, I kind of read the supreme court as telling us we are the ultimate deciders of the interim status of a case. How how do we get around that here?

另一方面，他们有义务遵循最高法院的先例，如果他们能弄清楚那个先例是什么的话。

On the other hand, they have an obligation to follow supreme court precedent if they can figure out what that precedent is.

但他们什么也没告诉我们。

But they're telling us nothing.

而且他们就这样撒手不管了，所以有一位法官对最高法院非常不满，因为他们把下级法院置于这种境地，给出的细节和指导如此之少。

And they're leaving so you had one judge really bristling at the Supreme Court for putting them in this position, for giving them so little details, so little guidance.

是的。我们在这里手足无措。我们就像被直接扔进了水里。至少给我一些指导吧。

Yes. We're out here flailing. We'll we'll just get in the water thrown in the water. Just give me some guidance.

是的。对此我完全同意。而且，我想

Yeah. No no disagreement there. And and I guess

亚当，我想我们上次请你上节目，就是为了讨论下级法院和最高法院之间日益加剧的紧张关系。而这感觉就是一个这种紧张关系公开上演的非常清晰的例子。

Adam, I think one of the previous recent times we've had you on the show was to discuss this growing tension between the lower courts and the supreme courts. And this feels like a really clear example of how that tension is playing out in the open.

没错。总的来说，这通常不是联邦司法系统的运作方式。司法系统各级之间有着深厚的尊重和钦佩，人们都清楚自己的角色。而这种公开的争议、分歧和分裂确实非常罕见。

Right. And in general, that is not the way the federal judicial system usually works. There's great respect and admiration across the levels of the judicial system, and people know their roles. And this controversy, dispute schism, and out in the open is really unusual.

我想知道的是，虽然你描述的情况显然会让法官感到沮丧，但为什么普通人也应该关心这件事呢？

I guess one thing I'm wondering is it's clear why what you have outlined could be frustrating to a judge, but why should an average person care that this is going on?

嗯，如果法官都感到困惑，那么受这些裁决影响的人也会困惑，而这可不是少数人。这涉及到数千甚至数万名联邦雇员，还有数十万移民。这些裁决不是抽象的概念，而是法院做出的、改变人生的真实决定。

Well, if judges are confused, the people affected by these decisions are confused, and that's not a handful of people. That's thousands, maybe tens of thousands of federal workers. It's many hundreds of thousands of immigrants. These are decisions that are not abstractions. They are real life, life altering decisions from the court.

考虑到这给人们和下级法院带来的所有困惑，我想问，这是裁决这些案件的唯一机制吗？难道就因为是政府要求以紧急程序处理，就真的必须这么快做出决定吗？

Given all of the confusion this is causing for people and for the lower I just wanna ask, is this the only mechanism by which these cases can be decided? Like, do they really have to be decided this quickly just because the government asks for them to be decided on this emergency basis?

还有另一种方式，法院偶尔也会这么做。它可以不只基于这些简单的暂停执行申请简报就发布命令，而是安排案件进行辩论、要求提交更多诉状。这可以很快完成，或许在这些棘手案件中，与其闪电般快速处理，不如稍微放慢节奏，在简报、辩论和审议后给出更确定的答案。

There is another way, and the court has done this occasionally. Instead of issuing an order based only on these thin stay application briefs, it could set the case down for argument. It could call for more briefs. It could do that pretty quickly and maybe the answer is in these hard cases rather than moving it lightning speed, slow it down a little bit and give a more conclusive answer after briefing argument deliberation.

简而言之：不必如此。实际上可能存在一个折中的选项。

The short answer is no. It does not have to be this way. There could actually be an in between option.

是的。但更常见的情况是，这些法院暂时批准的项目会在一年后按正常程序回到法院进行实质审理，安排真正的辩论。结果未必会相同。在拜登任内，曾有三次法院拒绝解除阻止其项目的禁令，但最终却裁决支持拜登。在特朗普的情况下，当案件回到法院时，他可能会败诉。

Yes. But what's more common is that these same cases in which the court has temporarily greenlighted programs will come back to the court in due course in a year on the merits, and they'll set it down for real arguments. And they won't necessarily go the same way. In the Biden years, there were three instances where the court refused to lift injunctions blocking Biden programs, but ultimately ruled in favor of Biden. In the Trump scenario, it may be that when cases return to the court, Trump loses.

但与此同时，事情已经发生了。如果法院批准取消对数十万人的移民保护措施，其中一些人可能已经被驱逐出境。如果法院批准解雇数千名联邦工作人员，也许有一天他们会说：你知道吗？你们当初就不该解雇他们。

But in the meantime, things will have happened. If the court green lights lifting immigration protections for hundreds of thousands of people, some of those people will have been deported. If the court green lights firing thousands of federal workers, maybe someday they'll go, you know what? You shouldn't have fired them.

但他们终究还是被解雇了。他们终究还是被驱逐了。

But they got fired nonetheless. They got deported nonetheless.

没错。所以你可以称这些为临时命令、暂行命令或暂时命令，但它们会产生现实世界中立竿见影的后果，而这些后果未必能够挽回。

Right. So you can call these interim orders, provisional orders, temporary orders, but they have real world immediate consequences that can't necessarily be undone.

我想知道您如何看待最高法院当前所处的时刻——我们所见到的景象究竟是代表了一个根本不同的最高法院，还是最高法院的一个阶段特征。

I wonder how you think we should understand the moment that the court is now in in terms of whether what we are seeing represents a fundamentally different Supreme Court or a phase of the Supreme Court.

我认为这可能会成为最高法院的新常态。几个世纪以来，这个机构一直以审慎 deliberation 的方式运作。最高法院园区内散布着小海龟雕塑，这象征着法院的工作是缓慢、深思熟虑且周全的，而非以闪电般的速度推进。但如今，法院似乎将一半精力都投入到了这种快速且不作解释的工作中。别忘了我们政府有三大分支。

I think this could be a new normal with the court which has for centuries operated in great deliberation. There are scattered around the supreme court grounds, little sculptures of tortoises. And that's a representation from the court that what they do is slow and deliberate and considered and not moving at lightning speed. But these days, seemingly half of the court's efforts are devoted to this kind of speedy unexplained work. And remember that we have three branches of government.

其中两个分支是经选举产生的。它们凭借民选身份主张合法性。最高法院的大法官显然非经选举产生，他们通过理性论证、通过自我解释和说服公众来主张合法性与权威——让民众相信呈现在他们面前的议题得到了充分关注，并形成了你可能不认同但至少能理解的审慎意见。至少你可以参与讨论，至少能检验其是非对错。

Two of them are elected. They claim legitimacy by dint of having been elected by the public. The Supreme Court, the justices are obviously unelected, and they claim legitimacy and authority by dint of reason, by dint of explaining themselves and persuading people that the issue before them has gotten their full attention and a careful opinion that you may not agree with, but at least you can follow it. At least you can engage with it. At least you can sort of test where it's right or wrong.

当一个法院像家长对孩子那样说'为什么？因为我说了算'时，这已然不同于我们熟悉的美国司法体系版本，它不仅有潜力重塑最高法院，更将重塑整个美国司法。

At a court that just says, like a parent would say to a child, why? Because I said so. That is a different version of the American justice system than the one we've been used to, and it has the potential to reshape not only the Supreme Court but American justice.

亚当，非常感谢你。

Adam, thank you so much.

谢谢你，瑞秋。

Thank you, Rachel.

我们稍后回来。以下是今天您还需要了解的其他信息。犹他州州长斯宾塞·考克斯提供了关于被指控杀害查理·柯克的22岁嫌疑人背景和政治倾向的新信息，称嫌疑人具有，引用原话，“左翼意识形态”，并且他曾与一名正在从男性过渡为女性的人有过恋爱关系。

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Governor Spencer Cox of Utah provided new information about the background and political leanings of the 22 year old accused of killing Charlie Kirk, saying that the suspect had, quote, leftist ideology and that he had been in a romantic relationship with someone who is in the process of transitioning from male to female.

我要说的是，那个人一直非常配合当局。我们所

I will say that that person has been very cooperative with authorities. What we

具体了解到的是，这个人对此毫不知情，当他们，当他们发现这件事时，感到非常震惊。

have learned specifically is that this person, did not have any knowledge, was shocked, when they, when they found out about it.

考克斯在NBC的《Meet the Press》节目中表示，与嫌疑人同居的恋爱伴侣向调查人员提供了指认这名涉嫌枪手的私人信息。考克斯还表示，嫌疑人似乎在大学辍学后的某个时候被，引用原话，“激进化”了，并且该男子大部分时间都沉浸在网络游戏、留言板以及考克斯所说的，引用原话，“深层黑暗互联网”的部分内容中。在柯克播客现场的一次直播中，他的妻子埃里卡在刺杀事件后首次公开发言，誓言她丈夫的工作将继续下去。

Cox said on NBC's Meet the Press that the romantic partner, who lived with the suspect had provided investigators with private messages that incriminated the alleged gunman. Cox also said that the suspect appeared to have been, quote, radicalized sometime after dropping out of college, and that the man had spent much of his time immersed in online gaming, message boards, and part of what Cox called the, quote, deep dark Internet. And in a livestream from the set of Kirk's podcast, his wife, Erica, spoke for the first time publicly since the assassination, vowing that her husband's work would continue.

如果你认为我丈夫之前的使命就很强大，那你根本不知道。你根本不知道你刚刚在整个国家和这个世界释放了什么。你根本不知道。

If you thought that my husband's mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you just have unleashed across this entire country and this world. You have no idea.

今天的节目由玛丽·威尔逊、里基·内维茨基和迈克尔·西蒙·约翰逊制作，由罗伯·齐普科、莱克西·迪奥和德文·泰勒编辑，由艾丽莎·莫克斯利担任技术工程师。《每日新闻》到此结束。我是瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯。明天见。

Today's episode was produced by Mary Wilson, Ricky Nevetsky, and Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Rob Zipko, Lexi Dio, and Devin Taylor, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for The Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.