前白宫道德律师、特朗普总统的频繁批评者诺姆·艾森（Norm Eisen）在最高法院周五作出裁决后，敦促美国人不要“反应过度”。该裁决允许政府在中期选举前推进其新的移民数据库计划。
Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics lawyer and frequent critic of President Trump, urged Americans not to “overreact” after the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling permitting the administration to move forward with its new immigration database ahead of the midterm elections.
在这项紧急裁决中，最高法院认定特朗普政府可以继续推进其计划，允许各州使用这一升级后的在线系统搜索不合格选民。
In an emergency ruling, the high court found that the Trump administration could proceed with its plans to allow states to use this overhauled online system to search for ineligible voters.
艾森指出，多数意见承认了《全国选民登记法》中的一项条款，该条款禁止各州在选举前90天内实施系统性选民移除计划。然而，大法官们指出，有限的“个别调查”仍可进行。
Eisen noted that the majority opinion acknowledged the provision of the National Voter Registration Act that bars states from implementing systemic voter removal programs within 90 days of an election.
艾森在社交媒体上写道：“该裁决的第6页明确指出，我们正处于90天的法定窗口期，在此期间不能对选民名单进行大规模更改！就三位异议大法官所说的原因而言，这是一个糟糕透顶的裁决，但我们可以应对。”
However, the justices noted that limited “individualized inquiries” could still proceed.
该裁决未署名且未提供投票计数，遭到法院三位自由派大法官的反对。它推翻了此前阻止特朗普政府向各州分发该新系统的下级法院裁决。
“Page 6 of the decision makes clear that we are in the 90 day statutory window when mass changes can’t be made to voter lists!” Eisen wrote on social media. “It’s a s— decision for the reasons the 3 dissenters say but we can deal w/it.” The decision, which was unsigned and did not provide a vote count, was opposed by the court’s three liberal justices. It overturns a lower-court ruling that prevented the Trump administration from distributing this new system to states.
法院在多数意见中写道：“下级法院的命令阻止联邦政府使用其认为最适合该任务的程序。”
“The order below prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task,” the court wrote in its majority opinion.
凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）大法官撰写了12页的异议意见，埃琳娜·卡根（Elena Kagan）和索尼娅·索托马约尔（Sonia Sotomayor）大法官附议。
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the 12-page dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
杰克逊写道：“然而在我看来，即使给少数合法选民带来负担或剥夺其选举权所造成的危害，也超过了政府因被阻止采取其可能无权采取的行动而遭受的不存在的危害。”
“In my view, however, the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take,” Jackson wrote.